With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". However, he cites no authority in support of this proposition. The record shows that the INS did all it was obligated to do under the relevant statutes and regulations. In May 1991 it personally served Lemus-Hernandez with an Order to Show Cause, so that he was aware that proceedings had been initiated against him. Then it sent a notice of the date and time of his hearing to the only address he had provided for the purpose of receiving such mail. Moreover, the postal service attempted to deliver the notice, as corroborated by postal markings stamped on the envelope. As the IJ pointed out, Lemus-Hernandez is responsible for his failure to receive notice because he did not comply with his obligations under the postal regulations. See Sharif v. Ashcroft, 280 F.3d 786, 788 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The address Lemus-Hernandez provided was

A: holding that where a sorna defendants travel and failure to register occurred after sornas enactment and the effective date of the act there is no ex post facto problem emphasis added
B: holding that the acpa presents no retroactivity problem because cybersquatting is a continuing wrong
C: holding that notice to an alien at the most recent address provided by the alien is legally sufficient
D: holding that where the address problem is the fault of the alien there is no constitutional problem with the agencys procedures and no basis for judicial relief
D.