With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". United States v. Palacios-Martinez, 845 F.2d 89 (5th Cir.1988), interpreting Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. at 828, 107 S.Ct. at 2149.). Asibor contends his deportation hearing violated due process for the following reasons: (1) he was denied the right to contact the Nigerian Consul; (2) the INS incorrectly informed him that two years was the maximum penalty; (3) he was never told he could appeal the deportation; and (4) no attorney was physically present to represent him at the deportation hearing. At trial, the court reviewed the deportation hearing transcript and found no defect. In analyzing Asibor’s claims under the two-step process previously announced by this court, we find that Asibor’s deportation hearing was not “fundamentally unfair.” See Zaleta-Sosa, 854 F.2d at 52 (<HOLDING>); Perez-Torres, 15 F.3d at 405 (holding that

A: holding that admission of evidence showing murder victim was pregnant though prejudicial did not render sentencing fundamentally unfair
B: holding that admission of evidence must be fundamentally unfair to constitute a due process violation
C: holding that use of a coerced confession in criminal trial would be fundamentally unfair
D: holding that failure to notify alien of right to contact mexican consul was not fundamentally unfair
D.