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.

Erickson-Puttmann concedes that her Title VII claim against Gill fails because Gill was not her employer. See e.g., Bonomolo-Hagen v. Clay Central-Everly Community Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 446, 447 (8th Cir.1997) ("Our Court quite recently has squarely held that supervisors may not be held individually liable under Title VII." (citing Spencer v. Ripley County State Bank, 123 F.3d 690, 691-92 (8th Cir.1997) (per cu-riam))). Lenhardt v. Basic Inst, of Tech., Inc., 55 F.3d 377, 381 (8th Cir.1995) (noting that "[e]very circuit that has considered the issue ultimately has concluded that an employee, even one possessing supervisory authority, is not an employer upon whom liability can be imposed under Title VII."); Smith v. St. Bernards Reg'l Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 1254, 1255 (8th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the court concludes that summary
Holding statements: (A) holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii (B) holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii (C) holding individual employees may be liable under title vii (D) holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii (E) holding that there is no individual liability under title vii
holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii

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
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

concludes the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") is the only authority cited by the Plaintiff which could provide jurisdiction. See R. 31, PagelD#: 566. The Administrative Procedure Act provides, in relevant part: Agency action made renewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review. 5 U.S.C. 704. The APA does not apply when "statutes preclude judicial review" or when "agency action is committed to agency discretion by law." 5 U.S.C. 701(a). The Magistrate Judge correctly observes that "Jama does not identify any statute that expressly makes the USCIS's actions he challenges reviewable in District Court," and as such, this Court does not have j nho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193, 202 (3rd Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Judicial review of orders of removal is
Holding statements: (A) holding agency action is final where there are no deportation proceedings pending in which the decision might be reopened or challenged (B) holding that section 1429 does not divest district court of jurisdiction when deportation proceedings are pending (C) holding that epa action initiating permitting proceedings was not final agency action (D) holding that district courts lack jurisdiction to review denied applications when deportation proceedings are pending (E) holding that apa 702s waiver of sovereign immunity applies regardless of whether the challenged agency action constitutes final agency action
holding that section 1429 does not divest district court of jurisdiction when deportation proceedings are pending