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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Input: Consider Input: abuse of a minor, the trial court may apply the statutory presumption that Junior and Saul are at substantial risk of being sexually abused. And if the trial court again finds that Rowan sexually abused Agnes, it can conclude that Junior and Saul are at substantial risk of being sexually abused. v. CONCLUSION We REMAND this case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Jurisdiction is RETAINED. 1 . We use pseudonyms to protect the privacy of the parties. 2 . The record does not show that Rowan attempted to obtain the information any other way, such as by scheduling a deposition, before making his motion. 3 . AS 40.25.100-295. AST relied on AS 40.25.120(a)(2), records pertaining to juveniles, and (a)(6), law enforcement records. 4 . 533 P.2d 13, 16 (Alaska 1975) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Rhodes v. Erion, 189 P.3d 1051, 1053
Holding statements: (A) holding prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knew that prisoner faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk (B) holding that mere knowledge of a defect is not sufficient to amount to an eighth amendment claim defendant must also draw the inference that a substantial risk of serious harm exists (C) holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse (D) holding that fathers sexual abuse of daughter demonstrated serious disregard of parental responsibilities and lack of social and moral values that posed substantial risk of harm to sons (E) holding that a party who can show a significant risk of irreparable harm has demonstrated that the harm is not speculative

Output: (D)

Input: Consider Input: otherwise nonremovable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters in which State law predominates. 28 U.S.C. 1441(c). While the amended third-party complaint alleges a claim involving a federal question against the Chase Defendants, the Circuits are split on whether section 1441(c) permits removal by a third-party defendant. Compare Lewis v. Windsor Door Co., 926 F.2d 729, 733 (8th Cir.1991) ('We do not ... believe 1441(c) was intended to effect removal of a suit, not otherwise within federal jurisdiction, because of the introduction of a third-party claim." (internal quotations omitted)) and First Nat'l Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, 301 F.3d 456, 465 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) with Carl Heck Eng'rs, Inc. v. Lafourche
Holding statements: (A) holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct (B) holding that removal under section 1441c may only be done by the original defendant (C) holding that 1441c does not allow the remand of claims that are not separate and independent (D) recognizing that 1441c limits removal to situations in which a federal question is joined with a separate and independent claim of a nonfederal nature (E) holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand

Output: (B)

Input: Consider Input: with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006). After the July 2006 merits hearing, the IJ found that the Petitioner had failed to establish his Congolese identity, which defeated prima facie eligibility for relief. See Wangchuck v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006) ("[A] petitioner's nationality, or lack of nationality, is a threshold question in determining his eligibility for asylum.") (internal quotation marks omitted). On the motion for rehearing, the BAD did not err in declining to consider Petitioner's newly submitted identity documents. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (<HOLDING>). As the BIA found, and Mudiangomba conceded
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that bia may deny motion to reopen where movant has not established prima facie eligibility for relief sought (B) recognizing that failure to offer new previously unavailable evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought is a proper ground on which the bia may deny a motion to reopen (C) recognizing that in an untimely motion to reopen based on changed country conditions the movant must submit previously unavailable evidence demonstrating his prima facie eligibility for relief (D) holding that the bia may deny a motion to reopen on the ground that the movant has not established prima facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought (E) holding that the bia may deny a motion to reopen based on its finding that the movant has not established his prima facie eligibility for relief
Output: (C)