Instructions: 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.
Input: in Gonzalez v. Chertoff, 454 F.3d 813 (8th Cir.2006), that the reasoning of Alvarez-Portillo is overruled. In Gonzalez, we held an alien who failed to apply for adjustment of status before IIRIRA's enactment, based on a pre-IIRIRA marriage, was subject to the new expedited removal proceedings under IIRIRA. See Gonzalez, 454 F.3d at 814-15, 816-18 & n. 4. After discussing Fernandez-Vargas at length, we determined "the Supreme Court in Femandez-Vargas found that the elimination of the opportunity to apply for adjustment of status under [IIRIRA] imposed no new burden on a completed act." Id. at 818. We stated "[w]e find that decision determinative on the issue of retroactivity in the instant case." Id. We then noted, "To the extent our decision in Alvarez-Portillo, 280 F.3d at 861 (<HOLDING>), suggests a different result, it is overruled
Holding statements: (A) holding that the substantive defenses to removal eliminated by 8 usc 1231a5 may not be retroactively denied to aliens who illegally reentered prior to enactment (B) holding that zadvydas applies to inadmissible aliens who have illegally entered the united states (C) holding that sjection 241a5 bars aliens who have illegally reentered the united states after having previously been deported from applying for relief (D) holding that a change of an element of an offense could not be applied retroactively to a crime committed prior to the statutes enactment (E) holding that an iirira provision on reinstatement of orders of removal did not apply to aliens who reentered prior to the iiriras effective date
Output:
holding that zadvydas applies to inadmissible aliens who have illegally entered the united states