| | However, the jurisdiction-stripping provisions on which the government relies are both subject to the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), which restores our jurisdiction to review "constitutional claims or questions of law." ''See, e.g., Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice'', 471 F.3d 315, 324 (2d Cir. 2006). As we explained in ''Xiao Ji Chen'', we have "not determine[d] the precise outer limits of the term 'questions of law.'" ''Id.'' at 328. We have, however, suggested that a question of law arises "where a discretionary decision is argued to be an abuse of discretion because it was ... based on a legally erroneous standard." ''Id.'' at 329. We have also indicated that a "question of law" might "arise for example in fact-finding which is flawed by an error of law, such as might arise where the IJ states that his decision was based on petitioner's failure to testify to some pertinent fact when the record of the hearing reveals unambiguously that the petitioner did testify to that fact." ''Id.'' (citing ''Tian-Yong Chen v. INS'', 359 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir. 2004)). | | However, the jurisdiction-stripping provisions on which the government relies are both subject to the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), which restores our jurisdiction to review "constitutional claims or questions of law." ''See, e.g., Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice'', 471 F.3d 315, 324 (2d Cir. 2006). As we explained in ''Xiao Ji Chen'', we have "not determine[d] the precise outer limits of the term 'questions of law.'" ''Id.'' at 328. We have, however, suggested that a question of law arises "where a discretionary decision is argued to be an abuse of discretion because it was ... based on a legally erroneous standard." ''Id.'' at 329. We have also indicated that a "question of law" might "arise for example in fact-finding which is flawed by an error of law, such as might arise where the IJ states that his decision was based on petitioner's failure to testify to some pertinent fact when the record of the hearing reveals unambiguously that the petitioner did testify to that fact." ''Id.'' (citing ''Tian-Yong Chen v. INS'', 359 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir. 2004)). |