TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
PROBLEM: “the evidence in the record compels a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the [BIA’s] decision is incorrect.” Id. Purely legal questions, including jurisdictional questions, are reviewed de novo. See Taslimi v. Holder, 590 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir.2010). III. ASYLUM To qualify for asylum, an applicant must file her application within one year after arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The limitations period will be tolled if the applicant can establish changed circumstances that materially affect her eligibility for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4)(i). Contrary to the government’s argument, we have jurisdiction to review an agency’s changed circumstances determination. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 648 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Petitioners argue that Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 
 Holding statements: (A) holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo (B) recognizing that this court reviews de novo the trial courts interpretation and application of a statute to undisputed facts (C) recognizing the issue may be decided as a question of law if the facts are undisputed and support only one inference (D) holding that when the facts of a robbery are undisputed the imposition of the enhancement is a question of the application of the guidelines to be reviewed de novo (E) holding that the real id act restored jurisdiction over the changed circumstances question because this question involved the application of a statutory standard to undisputed facts

SOLUTION: holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo

PROBLEM: to commit himself to such an alternative to a federal sentence. 2 . Defendant also raises two additional arguments: (1) that the district court improperly based its sentence on the defendant’s refusal to waive his constitutional and statutory rights to oppose his deportation; and (2) that the district court failed to appreciate the scope of its authority to consider, as a mitigating circumstance upon which to base a departure, defendant's vulnerability and susceptibility to abuse in prison due to his physical condition. Both arguments lack merit. As to the first argument, the conditioning of a downward departure on the surrender of a statutory right to a deportation hearing would not have offended due process. See United States v. Galvez-Falconi, 174 F.3d 255, 260 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). See generally United States v. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a defendant may appeal a district courts refusal to depart downward if the sentence was imposed in violation of law because the district court misconstrued its authority to depart (B) holding that district court had authority to grant section 5k20 downward departure despite governments opposition (C) holding that the district court was not required to state affirmatively on the record that it knew it possessed the authority to depart downward (D) holding that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review a district courts discretionary decision not to depart downward from the guidelines but would have jurisdiction if the district court based its decision on the belief that it did not have the authority to depart (E) holding that where a defendant malees a showing that the act of consenting to deportation carries unusual assistance to the administration of justice district court has authority under ussg  5k20 to depart downward in absence of the governments consent

SOLUTION: recognizing that a defendant may appeal a district courts refusal to depart downward if the sentence was imposed in violation of law because the district court misconstrued its authority to depart

PROBLEM: for the purposes of our analysis. We begin with the pre-Code bankruptcy practice. The Debtor notes that courts interpreting the present Bankruptcy Code have referred to the practices under the Act of 1898 that preceded it, and in construing provisions of the Code that were codifications of earlier judge-made law, as § 523(a)(7) evidently was, courts interpret the codification to match the prior judge-made law absent evidence of specific intent that it be interpreted otherwise, see Kelly, 479 U.S. at 44, 47, 107 S.Ct. at 358, 359. Valid though this may be as an interpretive tool, it does not help us here where prior to the present Code courts treated bail bond surety obligations both as dischargeable and as nondischargeable, compare United States v. Hawkins, 20 F.2d 539 (S.D.Cal.1927) (<HOLDING>) with In re Caponigri, 193 F. 291, 292 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that debts owed to the united states for liabilities of the debtor as a surety on bail bonds are of a class as to which a discharge in bankruptcy is a release (B) holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states (C) recognizing a cause of action for conspiracy to deprive a class of persons of their fundamental rights under the laws of the united states (D) holding the act inapplicable to the united states in its role as employer (E) holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states

SOLUTION:
holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states