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.
--------
Question: nonetheless entitled to claim derivative asylum relief based on the possibility that their citizen child would be subjected to FGM. In so assuming, the majority's remand is illusory. Although the practice of FGM is considered persecution under our law, there is no threat here since a United States citizen child cannot be deported to the country of her parents' birth, and the parents cannot claim an unrecognized form of derivative relief when they themselves cannot establish entitlement to asylum. By usurping the prerogative of Congress, which alone has the power to create a new basis for cancellation of removal, the majority violates the separation of powers doctrine and creates an unnecessary conflict with the Seventh Circuit. See Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 618 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Like the petitioner in Oforji, Mr. and Mrs.
Holding statements: (A) holding that an aliens express waiver of his right to appeal to the bia deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the aliens subsequent petition for review (B) 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 (C) holding that inconsistencies in the aliens statements must go to the heart of the asylum claim to justify an adverse credibility finding (D) holding that the failure to notify aliens counsel of an order to appear for deportation violated the aliens statutory right to counsel (E) holding that the crime of bringing aliens to the united states is complete when the initial transporter who brings the aliens to the united states ceases to transport them

Answer: holding that an aliens express waiver of his right to appeal to the bia deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the aliens subsequent petition for review

Question: 2d 266, 35 (discussing the reasoning in Brunst as being that "unless these 'time immemorial' duties were constitutionally protected from interference by others, the constitutional provision securing the people the right to choose sheriffs would become meaningless"). It seems incongruous to us that the policy of keeping duties within the office of sheriff because he is elected and answerable to the electors is consistent with the holdings in WPPA II (and, more recently Brown County), where the court held that because the duty was characteristically the sheriffs, he can, as a result, contract with third parties for the carrying out of the duty. Yet, we are bound by WPPA II (and its interpretation of Brunst) and Brown County. See Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 190, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997) (<HOLDING>). 29. For the reasons stated, we reverse the
Holding statements: (A) holding that one panel cannot overrule a prior panels published decision (B) holding that court of appeals may adopt such waiver rule (C) holding court of appeals erred in refusing to take judicial notice of published puc order (D) holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where it appears that the court of appeals itself would not follow that decision (E) holding that the court of appeals may not overrule modify or withdraw language from a previously published decision of the court of appeals

Answer: holding that one panel cannot overrule a prior panels published decision

Question: would assign. To the contrary, this case, in all important respects, is on all fours with Richardson. For largely the same reasons as stated in that case, we conclude that Duncan failed to establish, under the plain error standard of review, that his sentence was unconstitutionally determined by the executive branch. For these reasons, Duncan's convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED. 1 . Eleven law enforcement officials were implicated. 2 . Williams testified that demanding money from drug dealers in exchange for protection was common among his fellow officers. 3 . Rule 24(b) assigns the number of peremptory strikes to which the parties in a criminal case are entitled, in this case, ten for the defense and six for the prosecution. 4 . 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (<HOLDING>). 5 . 505 U.S. 42, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that a white defendant can object to the exclusion of minority jurors through the use of peremptory challenges (B) holding racebased use of peremptory strikes against jurors unconstitutional (C) holding that there was no batson claim even when the prosecution used nearly seventy percent 70 of its peremptory strikes to remove potential african american jurors (D) holding that it was not iac to decline to use peremptory strike on a potential juror whose statements hinted at possible bias against defendant where counsel strategically used peremptory strikes against jurors who might have been more likely to convict (E) holding that where a defendant does not use all of his or her peremptory challenges the defendant may not complain of prejudice for failure to dismiss prospective jurors

Answer:
holding that a white defendant can object to the exclusion of minority jurors through the use of peremptory challenges