The legislative history of the REAL ID Act states: "[t]he purpose of section 106(a)(1)(A)(iii) is to permit judicial review over those issues that were historically reviewable on habeas constitutional and statutory-construction questions, not discretionary or factual questions."   151 Cong. Rec. H2813, at H2873 (May 3, 2005).  The court retains jurisdiction to review the Boards erroneous application of the INA to undisputed facts. Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 441-442 (9th Cir. 2003). See also Ogbudimkpa v. Ashcroft, 342 F.3d 207, 223 (3d Cir. 2003) ("A district courts habeas jurisdiction encompasses review of the BIA applications of legal principles to undisputed facts."); Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 143 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Wangs argument on appeal challenging the BIAs application of the particular factors in this case to the relevant law falls within the permissible scope of review."); Saint Fort v, Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 191, 203 (1st Cir. 2003) (noting that the Supreme Courts decision in INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) "referred to the use of habeas to correct errors of law, including the erroneous application . . . of statutes" and suggesting that habeas review extends to "the erroneous application" of statutes).  Counsel must frame cases as presenting either a pure issue of law or as a case involving the erroneous application of law to undisputed facts to ensure jurisdiction after the REAL ID Act.