With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is no evidence that the immigration authorities have unreasonably prolonged [Young’s] removal proceedings and consequent detention.” Debel, 2014 WL 1689042, at *6; see also Demore, 538 U.S. at 532-33, 123 S.Ct. 1708 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (citing the lack of evidence of “an unreasonable delay by the [Government] in pursuing or completing deportation proceedings”); cf. Ly, 351 F.3d at 272 (noting that the petitioner’s detention was lengthened due to “the INS drag[ging] its heels indefinitely in making a decision”). Nor is there any “indication that [Young’s] continued detention ... will last indefinitely,” or — as discussed above — that his ultimate removal is unlikely. Orsino, 942 F.Supp.2d at 410; accord Debel, 2014 WL 1689042, at *6; cf. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 702, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (<HOLDING>); Monestime v. Reilly, 704 F.Supp.2d 453,

A: recognizing that at a bond hearing there is no limit to the discretionary factors that may be considered  in determining whether to detain an alien pending a decision on  removal
B: holding that an alien may be held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future
C: holding that it is not known legally that an offense has been committed until there is a conviction
D: holding if there has been no termination of employment there has been no layoff or reduction in force
B.