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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
--------
Question: Dubuque’s “irrevocable” decision to relocate was not a vote to categorically refuse Dubuque’s overtures, but a vote to insist on financial disclosure as a prelude to bargaining. The Board’s finding that good-faith bargaining between Dubuque and the UFCW might not have been futile was substantially supported by the record. 3. Retroactivity Finally, Dubuque argues that the Board erred by “retroactively” employing its new test in this case. Again, we disagree. Our formulation of the standard for evaluating challenges to the retroactive application of a ruling from an agency adjudication has varied. Compare Retail, Wholesale & Dep’t Store Union v. NLRB, 466 F.2d 380, 390 (D.C.Cir.1972) (applying a five-factor test) with Consolidated Freightways v. NLRB, 892 F.2d 1052, 1058 (D.C.Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted) with 
 Holding statements: (A) holding no retroactive application (B) recognizing a general principle that retroactive application of rules is permitted absent any manifest injustice (C) holding retroactive application (D) recognizing principle (E) holding that retroactive application of amendments will not result in manifest injustice

Answer: (B)


Question: variance criteria rendering its decision arbitrary and capricious; and, 5) erred in “taking” appellants’ property without just compensation. The County supports appellants’ contentions except for the last one, with which it disagrees. The County also contends the Board erred in applying the wrong law. The individual appellees, who opposed the variance applications, support the Board’s decision. Discussion 1. Applicable Law A. State Law Before we address the merits of appellants’ contentions, we shall address the County’s contention that the Board applied inapplicable law. The County asserts that the Board incorrectly applied a presumption that the requested use did not conform to the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Program because, while that presumption was added 677 (2000) (<HOLDING>). In 2002, the General Assembly amended the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendant must show reasonable probability that but for the error he would not have entered the plea (B) holding that the board did not have to consider whether denying the variance would have denied reasonable and significant use of the entire lot but rather whether denying the variance would have denied reasonable and significant use of the buffer (C) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration (D) holding that the question of whether it might have been error for the court to have denied leave to amend is not before us because plaintiffs never requested it (E) recognizing that a district attorney must have reasonable latitude in fairly presenting a case to the jury and that the trial judge must have reasonable discretion in deciding whether the bounds of propriety have been exceeded

Answer: (B)


Question: Angelina Damitas Echeverria-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal ng that it is “more likely than not” that the government would persecute her upon return to Guatemala. See Hakeem, 273 F.3d at 816. Echeverria-Ruiz’s due process claim fails, because even if the corroborating declaration were given full weight, it would merely confirm rather than add to other evidence in the record, and EcheverriaRuiz would still be unable to establish entitlement to withholding of removal. See Halaim v. INS, 358 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Echeverria-Ruiz did not raise, and therefore 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an alien must show error and substantial prejudice in order to prevail on a due process claim (B) holding that a petitioner must show prejudice in order to prevail on a claim that he or she was denied a full and fair hearing in violation of due process (C) holding that to prevail on a claim that an immigration hearing was procedurally insufficient the petitioner must demonstrate prejudice (D) holding that an alien must establish that he was prejudiced by the alleged error in order to prevail on a due process claim (E) holding petitioner must show prejudice to prevail on due process claim

Answer:
(E)