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.

Ex Input:
"the evidence in the record compels a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the [BIA's] decision is incorrect." Id. Purely legal questions, including jurisdictional questions, are reviewed de novo. See Taslimi v. Holder, 590 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir.2010). III. ASYLUM To qualify for asylum, an applicant must file her application within one year after arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B). The limitations period will be tolled if the applicant can establish changed circumstances that materially affect her eligibility for asylum. 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. 208.4(a)(4)(i). Contrary to the government's argument, we have jurisdiction to review an agency's changed circumstances determination. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 648 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Petitioners argue that Sael v. Ashcroft, 386
Holding statements: (A) holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo (B) recognizing that this court reviews de novo the trial courts interpretation and application of a statute to undisputed facts (C) recognizing the issue may be decided as a question of law if the facts are undisputed and support only one inference (D) holding that when the facts of a robbery are undisputed the imposition of the enhancement is a question of the application of the guidelines to be reviewed de novo (E) holding that the real id act restored jurisdiction over the changed circumstances question because this question involved the application of a statutory standard to undisputed facts

Ex Output:
holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo

Ex Input:
"good cause for delay." United States v. Occhipinti, 851 F.Supp. at 526; United States v. El-Gabrowny, 844 F.Supp. 955, 959 (S.D.N.Y.1994). Next, a "sufficient" affidavit must satisfy the following requirements: (1) the facts must be material and stated with particularity; (2) the facts must be such that if true they would convince a reasonable man that a bias exists; and (3) the facts must show the bias is personal, and not judicial, in nature. McClelland v. Gronwaldt, 942 F.Supp. 297, 300 (E.D.Tex.1996) (citation omitted). To be found sufficient as a matter of law, the affidavit must show " 'a true personal bias and allege specific facts' as opposed to mere conclusions and generalizations." United States v. Occhipinti, 851 F.Supp. at 525; see United States v. Sykes, 7 F.3d at 1339 (<HOLDING>). This Circuit has observed that "judicial
Holding statements: (A) holding that unsupported affidavits setting forth ultimate or conclusoiy facts and conclusions of law are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment (B) recognizing that an implied contract must result from a meeting of the minds of the parties in mutual assent to the terms and must be based upon a sufficient consideration free from fraud or undue influence not against public policy and sufficiently definite to be enforced (C) holding that course of dealing may render uncertain terms sufficiently definite (D) holding that the facts averred must be sufficiently definite and particular to convince a reasonable person that bias exists simple conclusions opinions or rumors are insufficient (E) holding that unsupported affidavits setting forth ultimate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment

Ex Output:
holding that unsupported affidavits setting forth ultimate or conclusoiy facts and conclusions of law are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment

Ex Input:
lead levels, from which "a jury could reasonably infer that if [defendant's property] was not contributing source [of lead exposure,]" plaintiffs blood lead levels would have decreased while living at that property). And, of course, a plaintiff who overcomes summary judgment still bears the burden of proof as to the element of causation at trial, where expert opinion can play a critical role in persuading a jury. The standard for admissibility of expert testimony as to source causation is thus a vital one in lead paint actions. The Majority holds today that an expert who gives an opinion that a defendant's property caused a plaintiffs harm does not need to show or explain that other reasonably probable sources did not cause the plaintiffs harm. Majority Op. at 250-51, 164 A.3d at 238 (<HOLDING>) The Majority's removal of the requirement that
Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify (B) holding that an expert is not competent to testify as to statutory interpretation (C) holding that an expert witnesss testimony on an ultimate issue was admissible recognizing that the expert did not specifically testify that the defendant was guilty or that as a matter of law the facts satisfied the applicable legal standard (D) holding that it is not the rule that a source causation expert in a lead paint action must exclude other properties before he can testify that the plaintiff was exposed to lead at the subject property (E) recognizing that a plaintiff must produce a medical expert to testify as to causation in all but the most selfevident medical malpractice actions

Ex Output:
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify