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.

Ex Input:
protected activity for purposes of the first element of a prima facie case and the second element is not disputed. “To establish a causal connection, a plaintiff must show that ‘the decision-makers were aware of the protected conduct’ and ‘that the protected activity and the adverse employment action were not wholly unrelated.’ ” Gupta v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d 571, 590 (11th Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted). “[A]t a mini mum, [a plaintiff] must show that the adverse act followed the protected conduct.” Griffin v. GTE Fla., Inc., 182 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir.1999). In other words, the plaintiff must show a temporal link between a protected activity and an adverse employment action. See Sullivan v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 170 F.3d 1056, 1060-61 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Griffin, 182 F.3d at 1281-82 (finding no 
 Holding statements: (A) holding causal link between alleged discriminatory remarks and adverse employment action insufficient (B) holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action (C) holding that an intervening act of misconduct by the plaintiff can break the causal link between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action (D) holding that no causal link existed between protected activity in february 1994 and adverse employment actions in late 1994 and early 1995 (E) holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection

Ex Output:
holding causal link between alleged discriminatory remarks and adverse employment action insufficient


Ex Input:
to obtain the benefit of the bond, for which it paid a significant premium, only through legal action. Accordingly, Olympic Steamship applies here. Colorado Structures, 125 Wn. App. at 928 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). We agree. ¶27 Lastly, in McGreevy, where this court awarded reasonable attorney fees in addition to the limits of the insurance policy, we reasoned, “when an insurer unsuccessfully contests coverage, it has placed its interests above the insured. Our decision in Olympic Steamship remedies this inequity by requiring that the insured be made whole.” McGreevy, 128 Wn.2d at 39-40. Likewise, West placed “its interests” above that of Structures. Id. Structures should be awarded attorney fees under Olympic Steamship, so as to be made “whole.” Dayton, 124 Wn.2d at 280 (<HOLDING>)- Without the application of Olympic Steamship 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the contract was not authorized by law (B) recognizing that under georgia law attorneys fees are allowed where authorized by statute or contract (C) holding because an award of attorney fees is discretionary court may consider attorney fees in relation to the underlying equities in the case (D) holding that an award of attorney fees was authorized by ocga  13111 a 3 when the requirements of that statute were satisfied (E) holding that a court has power to award attorney fees when authorized by contract statute or recognized ground of equity

Ex Output:
holding the contract was not authorized by law


Ex Input:
remand, the Board violated due process by depriving him a full and fair opportunity to seek cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction to review this constitutional claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006). It is well established in this circuit that an alien cannot predicate a due process claim on alleged infirmities in the adjudication of an application for discretionary relief. Dekoladenu v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 500, 508 (4th Cir.2006) (“No property or liberty interest can exist when the relief sought is discretionary”), overruled on other grounds by Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1, 128 S.Ct. 2307, 171 L.Ed.2d 178 (2008). The relief of cancellation of removal is entirely discretionary. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a); Sorda v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 124 (4th Cir.2011); see Obioha, 431 F.3d at 409 (<HOLDING>). We accordingly reject Cruzaldovinos’ due 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an alien raising a due process challenge to removal proceedings must show error and substantial prejudice (B) holding that a motion to reopen seeking only to apply for a form of relief which was unavailable to the movant at the time of the hearing  is subject to the regulatory requirements governing motions to reopen (C) recognizing that petitioners due process claim stemming from denial of motion to reopen to apply for cancellation of removal was flawed in part because an alien does not have a legal entitlement to discretionary relief (D) holding that an order denying a petitioners motion to reopen proceedings so that he could apply for adjustment of status was not a judgment regarding the granting of relief and was thus reviewable (E) holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal based on a lack of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship

Ex Output:

holding that an alien raising a due process challenge to removal proceedings must show error and substantial prejudice