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. 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: Substantial compliance with the requirements for immigrant status as a conditional permanent resident, even if true, cannot excuse plaintiffs failure to maintain a full course of study pursuant to his student status. The intent for status as a conditional permanent resident and as a non-immigrant student are mutually exclusive; the former encompasses a desire to permanently remain in the United States while the latter does not. Moreover, the two sets of requirements are separate and independent. Compare 8 C.F.R. 245 with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f). Compliance with the requirements for being a conditional permanent resident does not constitute substantial compliance with the requirements for being a non-immigrant student. See, e.g., Ghajar v. I.N.S., 652 F.2d 1347, 1348 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Here, plaintiff violated specific regulations
Holding statements: (A) holding that substantial compliance with the requirements for maintaining nonimmigrant student status under 8 cfr 2142f does not constitute substantial compliance with the requirements for obtaining an extension of stay under 8 cfr 2141c (B) recognizing that when the employer had failed to comply with the reporting requirements of 29 cfr 5162 an order requiring prospective compliance was proper but that additional sanctions for the past violation were not necessary (C) holding that substantial compliance is sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of sdcl 3212 and 3 (D) holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient (E) holding that substantial compliance with the requirements for exempting a lessors personal property from a lien is not enough
Output:
recognizing that when the employer had failed to comply with the reporting requirements of 29 cfr 5162 an order requiring prospective compliance was proper but that additional sanctions for the past violation were not necessary