Q: 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.
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, implemented in the United States by the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub.L. No. 105-277, 2242, 112 Stat. 2681-761 (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1231). 3 . Kamara also filed a motion for emergency stay of removal, which the District Court elected to treat as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and by order dated May 30, 2002, consolidated the actions. On July 25, 2002, the District Court issued an Order stating that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the habeas petition. On appeal, this court issued a judg ment vacating the District Court's July 25, 2002 Order and remanding the case, in light of our decision in Ogbudimkpa v. Ashcroft, 342 F.3d 207, 222 (3d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 4
Holding statements: (A) holding that a 2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under 2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction (B) holding that the federal district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to review the courts denial of a particular application for admission to the district of columbia bar (C) holding that district courts have jurisdiction under 28 usc 2241 to review cat claims for errors of law including the erroneous application or interpretation of statutes (D) holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo (E) holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction depends upon the district court finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 usc 1330a and proper service under 28 usc 1608
A:
holding that a 2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under 2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction