With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (“BIA”) order affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s decision denying Lising’s application for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 237(a)(1)(H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review the statutory eligibility elements of a waiver of inadmissibility under section 237(a)(1)(H). See San Pedro v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1156, 1157 (9th Cir.2005). Reviewing de novo, Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review. The agency correctly found Lising to be statutorily ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 237(a)(1)(H) because he did not have a qualifying relative at the time of the immigration judge’s decision. See Kalezic v. INS, 647 F.2d 920, 922 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Lising’s contention that he merited relief in

A: holding that the date of discrimination is the date on which a decision not to hire a plaintiff becomes effective
B: holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act
C: holding that the critical date for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 237a1h is the date of the immigration judges decision
D: holding that the date of death is relevant date of inquiry for the applicability of section 541a5a
C.