Jurisdiction in this case is proper under the REAL ID Act of 2005, which limited judicial review of decisions rendered by immigration judges and the BIA to “constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review.” REAL ID Act § 106(a)(1)(A)(iii), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). This Court has considered at length what constitutes a question of law that would allow jurisdiction to vest. Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716 (2d Cir. 2007); Khan v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2007); Chen 2006). v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. This Court will look to the “nature of the claims raised” rather than the merits of the claims and will “scrutinize a petitioner’s arguments to determine whether they raise reviewable questions [of law].” Khan, 495 F.3d at 35. A petition that “merely factual quarrels over findings the or correctness justification of for the the discretionary choices” fails to raise a sufficient question of law in which 6 case the Court could