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.

the murder of Captain Azote. It is perhaps true that Adekpe's story might be more plausible if the letters had confirmed details of these events. (On the other hand, as Adekpe observes, it might be suspicious for a letter to without solicitation recount stories that are several years old and with which the recipient is more familiar than the writer.) But while the IJ was correct to conclude that the letters did not "specifically corroborate" Adekpe's testimony in that way, she ignored a way in which the letters might make Adekpe's story more plausible without specifically corroborating its details: by revealing that the situation in Togo after his departure is consistent with the situation he says existed prior to his departure. See Balogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492, 507 (7th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). It is undisputed that Togo frequently
Holding statements: (A) holding that the failure to notify aliens counsel of an order to appear for deportation violated the aliens statutory right to counsel (B) holding that a class of all high school female athletes could not be certified even if the alleged conduct of the defendant school system was discriminatory when some female athletes did not share the same goals or interests as the named female plaintiffs because those unnamed female athletes were satisfied with andor benefitted from the alleged discriminatory treatment (C) holding that a letter from an aliens mother stating that elders were asking when the alien would return to undergo female genital mutila tion corroborated the aliens story that she had been pressured to undergo female genital mutilation (D) holding that the applicant was entitled to asylum based on her fear that her daughter will be forced to undergo female genital mutilation because her fear of being forced to witness the pain and suffering of her daughter is wellfounded (E) holding that an alien parent may not establish a derivative claim for asylum by pointing to potential hardship to the aliens united states citizen child in the event of the aliens deportation
holding that the failure to notify aliens counsel of an order to appear for deportation violated the aliens statutory right to counsel