TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: five years. The issue is thus whether the time Hartman served in prison after the IJ's improper decision should count toward the five-year bar. The Court holds that it should not count and thus, contrary to the BIA's ruling in March 2002, the application for 212(c) relief was not untimely when the IJ addressed the merits of that application on January 25, 2001. 1. The Statutory Five-Year Bar At the outset, the Court addresses Hartman's argument that the five-year clock stops upon filing an application for 212(c) relief, which, in this case, would be January 1997. The Court disagrees with that argument. The five-year clock of 212(c) does not stop when an alien, such as Hartman, files an application for a discretionary waiver. See Gomes v. Ashcroft, 311 F.3d 43, 45 (1st Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Falconi v. INS, 240 F.Supp.2d 215, 218
Holding statements: (A) holding that a lawful permanent resident alien is entitled to seek relief under ina 212c (B) holding that the date of death is relevant date of inquiry for the applicability of section 541a5a (C) holding that the relevant date is not when petitioner filed for 212c relief (D) holding that we have jurisdiction to review an aliens legal eligibility for relief under former ina 212c (E) holding that iiriras repeal of ina 212c was not impermissibly retroactive because unlike st cyr the petitioner chose to proceed to trial instead of agreeing to a plea and therefore did not detrimentally rely on the availability of 212c relief

SOLUTION: (C)

PROBLEM: issue, we need not consider the second argument raised. 7 . In a dissent to Smith, Judge Friedman, joined by Judges Pellegrini and Kelley, objected to following the Miller/Lewis/Selan line of cases which automatically equated the refusal to sign a hospital consent form with a refusal to submit to chemical testing. The dissenting judges expressed preference for the other line of caselaw, particularly Conrad, and noted that because Smith orally agreed to the blood test and only refused to sign the hospital consent form, which was a pre-test procedure linked to the test, although not required by section 1547, Smith did not make a knowing and conscious refusal to submit to chemical testing. 8 . Wheatley v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 104 Pa.Cmwlth. 171, 521 A.2d 507 (1987) (<HOLDING>). 9 Although Renwick does not expressly
Holding statements: (A) holding refusal to sign hospital waiver of liability form is not a refusal under section 1547 (B) holding that refusal to consent to search cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion (C) holding that refusal to submit to breathalyzer test did not result from custodial interrogation (D) holding that a refusal to sign an implied consent form is not a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test for purposes of section 1547 (E) holding that a district court did not clearly err in crediting agents testimony that a defendant had orally consented despite his refusal to sign consent form

SOLUTION: (D)

PROBLEM: a hearing before the Industrial Commissioner on his application for alternate medical care and not for the legal process's (i.e., the answer's) intended use; (3) ITT's use of the legal process for the improper purpose was a proximate cause of Gibson's damage; and (4) the amount of damage. ITT challenges various aspects of the abuse-of-process claim. For example, it argues that (1) the answer was not filed (or not withdrawn) in order to refuse to pay for psychiatric care, (2) this action was not unreasonable, and (3) Gibson cannot show damage from ITT's failure to pay the psychiatric bills. Because ITT has not appealed from the judgment in favor of Gibson on this claim, it cannot now challenge the judgment. See Johnson Equip. Corp. v. Indus. Indem., 489 N.W.2d 13, 17 (Iowa 1992) (<HOLDING>). We reject ITT's contention that it was a
Holding statements: (A) holding that to preserve an issue a party must object with sufficient specificity to allow the trial court to address it (B) holding that a party need not crossappeal a trial courts rejection of a ground urged in the trial court to preserve error on a claim decided in the partys favor but must still crossappeal to preserve an issue on a claim decided adversely to the party (C) holding to preserve an issue for appellate review the issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by trial court and a party may not argue one ground for objection at trial and another ground on appeal (D) holding neither party was prevailing party where appeal and crossappeal were dismissed (E) holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial

SOLUTION:
(B)