With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The approved Form 1-130 visa petition did not confer legal status on Marilyn. See Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 879 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA properly affirmed the IJ’s denial of Marilyn’s application for adjustment of status because she is not eligible for an immigrant visa, a prerequisite to adjustment. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). Marilyn is not eligible for the visa as the spouse of a U.S. citizen because Ariel has been denaturalized. Marilyn is also unable to adjust status as the spouse of “an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence” because Ariel was never “lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(2). Ariel was married at the time of his admission, and was therefore ineligible for the status he was accorded. See Monet v. INS, 791 F.2d 752, 754 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s

A: holding that where a temporary order is later made permanent the permanent order may be challenged
B: holding that an alien who procured permanent resident status byconcealing his ineligibility had not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence
C: holding that aliens who as minor children lived with permanent resident parents before independently attaining permanent resident status may count that period toward section 212cs sevenyear domicile requirement
D: holding that adjustment of status was permitted even if deportable alien had entered the country as a lawful permanent resident
B.