With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court added that, in all events, “an alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation.” Id. at 488, 119 S.Ct. 936. We addressed the impact of AADC in Mahadeo v. Reno, 226 F.3d 3 (1st Cir.2000). There, an alien whose prior convictions disqualified him for discretionary relief under the IIRIRA — but not under the INA — claimed eligibility for a 212(c) waiver on the ground that the convictions predated the IIRIRA. Id. at 6. We rejected the Attorney General’s argument that AADC overruled Goncalves, or, alternatively, that the petitioner no longer was eligible for discretionary relief because deportation proceedings had not commenced until after the expiration of the so-called transitional rules. See id. at 10 (<HOLDING>). Noting that AADC applied only to cases on

A: holding that where congressional intent is clear a court must give effect to such intent
B: holding that iiriras permanent rules lack the clear statement of the congressional intent necessary to eliminate habeas review
C: holding that where substantial doubt about congressional intent exists the general presumption favoring judicial review is controlling
D: holding that preservation of error in the trial court is not necessary as to lack of standing
B.