With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to provide and with the settled proposition that an Immigration Judge cannot adjudicate guilt or innocence.... If we were to make an exception here and accept the respondent’s testimony as proof of his deportability under section 241(a)(2)(C) of the Act, there would be no clear stopping point where this Board could limit the scope of seemingly dispositive but extrinsic evidence bearing on the respondent's deportability. We believe that the harm to the system induced by the consideration of such extrinsic evidence far outweighs the beneficial effect of allowing it to form the evidentiary basis of a finding of deportability. Id. at 335-36. Accordingly, the BIA held that the INS’s charge of deportability failed. See also In re Teixeira, 21 I. & N. Dec. 316, 319-20 (BIA 1996)(en banc)(<HOLDING>). 14 . The version of § 53-21 in effect in 1993

A: holding that because the court could not consider police reports it could not rely on an attorneys argument based on the police report as the basis for determining the statutory basis for a conviction
B: holding that the defendants prior conviction referenced in his presentence report could be taken as admitted because he had made no objection to the facts in his report
C: holding that hearsay within a police report was inadmissible
D: holding that an ij could not consider a police report as part of the record of conviction to determine whether an alien had committed a firearms offense because the police report could encompass many offenses with which the alien was never charged or convicted
D.