With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. 1. The BIA properly ruled that Petitioner failed • to demonstrate 10 years of continuous physical presence. At the very latest, Petitioner stopped accruing physical presence when he appeared before an immigration judge (“U”) on January 17, 2006. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(l)(A) (providing that the accrual of physical presence “shall be deemed to end ... when the alien is served a notice to appear” in removal proceedings); Garcia-Ramirez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 935, 937 n. 3 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (stating that a notice specifying the time and location of removal proceedings, which followed the initial notice to appear in those proceedings, stopped the accrual of physical presence); Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828-29 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). It is undisputed that Petitioner had been in

A: holding that the state courts factfinding procedure was adequate even though it did not hold an evidentiary hearing because  hearing as used in  2254d does not require a trialtype hearing at which live testimony is presented and the accused has the opportunity to crossexamine witnesses
B: holding that the term hearing includes specially scheduled sessions for argument by counsel
C: holding that the juvenile received inadequate notice of a hearing modifying his probation because he received no notice of the hearing or the reasons for it
D: holding that appearance at the scheduled hearing demonstrates actual notice of the hearing
D.