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 Q]: with the court, that Mr. Peralta has been granted a labor certification pursuant to a subsequent application filed by his employer. He has been awarded all of the relief that he sought, and there is consequently no live controversy concerning the original denial of his application for the same position with the same employer. As to the appellants whose employers have re-filed new certification applications that are currently pending, we do not think their claims are mooted. In contrast to Mr. Peralta, these parties have not yet received the relief originally sought and thus their original claim that the denial of their first certification application was arbitrary remains a live controversy. See County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Actually, even after a certification is
Holding statements: (A) holding that a case under the declaratory judgments act remains a live controversy even if all requests for substantive declaratory relief become moot during the actions pendency as long as a claim for attorneys fees under the act remains pending (B) holding that issues as to whether declaratory relief should be granted had become moot and would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but that under hallman the entire appeal was not moot because there still was a live controversy as to whether appellee was entitled to recover attorneys fees under the declaratory judgments act and therefore issues regarding attorneys fees were not moot and would be decided (C) holding that appeals are moot when appellate courts can provide no effective relief (D) holding that a case is not moot so long as the court can fashion some form of meaningful relief for the injured party (E) holding that a previously live case can become moot only if interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation
[EX A]: holding that a case under the declaratory judgments act remains a live controversy even if all requests for substantive declaratory relief become moot during the actions pendency as long as a claim for attorneys fees under the act remains pending

[EX Q]: of the INS were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub.L. No. 107-296, 471(a), 116 Stat. 2135, 2205 (codified at 6 U.S.C. 291(a)). 3 . Petitioner argues that it was inappropriate to look to the treatment of his family members in determining the likelihood of petitioner being persecuted if he returns to Algeria, because his situation is not identical to theirs. This is mistaken; relatives' situations in the home country, while not conclusive, are certainly relevant. See Aguilar-Solis, 168 F.3d at 573 ("Without some explanation, the fact that close relatives continue to live peacefully in the alien's homeland undercuts the alien's claim that persecution awaits his return"); In re A-E, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1157, 1160 (BIA 1998) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Petitioner also argues that the BIA
Holding statements: (A) holding that the reasonableness of an aliens fear of persecution is reduced when his family remains in his native country unharmed for a long period of time after his departure (B) holding that the state could not under any circumstances be charged for the delay during the period the defendant was held after his arrest for and until his conviction on felony charges in another jurisdiction (C) holding that an applicant may establish eligibility for asylum based exclusively on activities undertaken after his arrival in the united states so long as he demonstrates that authorities in his country are aware of his activities or likely to become aware of his activities (D) holding that a witness may testify about his subjective interpretation of a conversation in which he is participating as long as his opinion is rationally based on his perception and is helpful either to an understanding of his testimony or to the determination of a fact in issue (E) holding the respondent implicitly exercised his right to withdraw his voluntary departure request and instead elected to remain to pursue his motion
[EX A]: holding that the state could not under any circumstances be charged for the delay during the period the defendant was held after his arrest for and until his conviction on felony charges in another jurisdiction

[EX Q]: floor with suspect cocaine and marijuana. The baggies were approximately one inch by one inch. The parties stipulated that the substances were marijuana and cocaine. Police testified that the manner of packaging indicated the drugs were set up for distribution. At the close of the State's case, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State had failed to prove the defendant had committed any crime as the police never observed anything illegal in the defendant's possession. The trial court denied the motion. We find that the evidence presented by the State failed to establish a prima facie case of guilt, see Hodge v. State, 970 So.2d 923, 926-27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and thus reverse the judgments of conviction. See Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002) (<HOLDING>). Morejon v. State, 633 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA
Holding statements: (A) recognizing ruling on motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo on appeal (B) holding that a legal conclusion on a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo (C) holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo (D) holding that a circuit courts entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo (E) holding that confrontation clause claims are reviewed de novo
[EX A]:
holding that a legal conclusion on a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo