With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-625 (“IIRIRA”) — bars such relief in their case. Petitioners’ arguments challenging the application of the stop-time rule are foreclosed by our decision in Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510 (9th Cir.2001). The Board therefore correctly concluded that the stop-time rule applied to their application. PETITIONS DENIED. ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1 . The Immigration Judge properly applied the stop-time rule to Petitioners because her order pretermitting Petitioners' application for suspension of deportation was issued subsequent to the April 1, 1997, effective date of IIRIRA. See Astrero v. INS, 104 F.3d 264, 266 (9th Cir.1996)

A: holding that because iirira  309 would not become effective before april 1 1997 retroactive application of ina 240a could not take effect before that date
B: holding that iiriras effective date is april 1 1997
C: holding that because the removal proceeding began after april 1 1997 iirira governed
D: holding that a prisoner with a state conviction finalized before april 24 1996  had until april 23 1997 to file a federal habeas petition
B.