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.

[Q]: "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
[A]: holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo

[Q]: Majority Opinion in Ford, former Justice Newman authored a concurring opinion, which Justice Saylor joined, in which she specifically expressed her agreement "that appellate counsel acted ineffectively by neglecting to raise trial counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to investigate and present evidence during the penalty phase of Appellant's history of abuse and mental illness." Ford, 809 A.2d at 336 (Newman, J., joined by Saylor, J., concurring). 5 . Although Teague's retroactivity analysis did not gamer five votes, a majority of the High Court soon thereafter reaffirmed the Teague plurality's rule and its two exceptions in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 313, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989). 6 . Compare with Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct.
Holding statements: (A) holding that leaning towards the death penalty is not the same as an automatic vote for the death penalty (B) holding that mentally retarded capital murderers are constitutionally ineligible for death penalty (C) holding that juveniles are constitutionally ineligible for death penalty (D) holding that defendant may be subject to death penalty on resentencing (E) holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile defendants
[A]: holding that leaning towards the death penalty is not the same as an automatic vote for the death penalty

[Q]: of Rule 404(b). Instead, appellant's counsel focused on the fact that not redacting the "child molester" statement would require appellant to "open the door" to the DHS investigation so that the jury was properly informed about that allegation. Without a specific objection and a ruling, that issue is not preserved for appeal and we need not address it. Moreover, appellant never made a specific relevancy objection. Rather, appellant urged that the portion of the statement including the comment had "nothing to do with this case" and "no evidentiary purpose." This court will not presume that these ambiguous statements preserve a specific relevancy objection, lest we presume such statements preserve all "evidentiary" objections. See Vanesch v. State, 343 Ark. 381, 37 S.W.3d 196 (2001) (<HOLDING>). |17V. Officer Testimony For his final point
Holding statements: (A) holding that objection on grounds of relevance does not preserve an objection for lack of authentication (B) holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection (C) holding that objection by defense counsel that he did not see the relevance of the evidence was not a proper relevancy objection (D) holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection (E) holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully
[A]:
holding that objection on grounds of relevance does not preserve an objection for lack of authentication