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. 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: remand, the Board violated due process by depriving him a full and fair opportunity to seek cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction to review this constitutional claim. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006). It is well established in this circuit that an alien cannot predicate a due process claim on alleged infirmities in the adjudication of an application for discretionary relief. Dekoladenu v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 500, 508 (4th Cir.2006) ("No property or liberty interest can exist when the relief sought is discretionary"), overruled on other grounds by Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1, 128 S.Ct. 2307, 171 L.Ed.2d 178 (2008). The relief of cancellation of removal is entirely discretionary. 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a); Sorda v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 124 (4th Cir.2011); see Obioha, 431 F.3d at 409 (<HOLDING>). We accordingly reject Cruzaldovinos' due
Holding statements: (A) holding that an alien raising a due process challenge to removal proceedings must show error and substantial prejudice (B) holding that a motion to reopen seeking only to apply for a form of relief which was unavailable to the movant at the time of the hearing is subject to the regulatory requirements governing motions to reopen (C) recognizing that petitioners due process claim stemming from denial of motion to reopen to apply for cancellation of removal was flawed in part because an alien does not have a legal entitlement to discretionary relief (D) holding that an order denying a petitioners motion to reopen proceedings so that he could apply for adjustment of status was not a judgment regarding the granting of relief and was thus reviewable (E) holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal based on a lack of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship
Output:
(C)