With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". re Smriko held that "[t]he respondent’s argument that the Attorney General’s termination of refugee status is a precondition to removal is directly refuted by the statute, the promulgating regulation, and the Attorney General’s explanation of the refugee adjustment process in [In re ] Jean." Id. at 840. 39 . She points us to In re D-K-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 761 (BIA 2012); In re H-N-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1039 (BIA 1999) (en banc); In re Jean, 23 I. & N. Dec. 373 (B.I.A.2002). She also tries to analogize her case to In re Rainford, 20 I. & N. Dec. 598 (BIA 1992) and In re Gabryelsky, 20 I. & N. Dec. 750 (BIA 1993). 40 . 24 I. & N. Dec. at 324-25. 41 . Id. at 330. 42 . Id. 43 . 516 F.3d 243 (4th Cir.2008). 44 . Id. at 252-53. 45 . Van v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 395 Fed.Appx. 889, 891-92 (3d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). 46 . Gutnik v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 683, 692

A: holding ineligible for adjustment of status alien who was inadmissible due to reentry after prior removal
B: holding that refugees who have already acquired lpr status are ineligible for a  209c waiver in light of the language in that adjustment of status can be granted to an alien who has not acquired permanent resident status
C: recognizing that an alien is ineligible for relief under  212c if he was not actually admissible at the time he received an adjustment of status
D: holding that an alien who adjusted status from refugee to lawful permanent resident no longer qualified as a refugee and was thus no longer eligible to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility in connection with an adjustment of status under  209
B.