With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". visa. ‘Eligibility to receive such visa’ is unambiguous, and because the phrase is unambiguous, our inquiry must end with the statute’s plain language.” Id. The Nyaga court went on to consider the context of 8 U.S.C. § 1154 and concluded that “the plain meaning of ‘shall remain eligible to receive such visa’ does not change, nor is it rendered ambiguous.” Id. at 915. All circuits that have addressed this issue have read the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(l)(I)(ii)(II) in the same way even in the wake of what may seem to be harsh results, such as when defendants failed to even process the applications of otherwise eligible diversity participants before the end of the fiscal year. See Mohamed, 436 F.3d at 81; Coraggioso, 355 F.3d at 734; Carrillo-Gonzalez, 353 F.3d at 1079 (<HOLDING>). The Second Circuit addressed the plight of

A: holding that the doctrine of equitable tolling has no application in cases involving the congressionallymandated oneyear deadline of the dy lottery program
B: holding that the doctrine of equitable tolling can fairly be read to encompass cases where a plaintiff has been unable to timely file because of disability
C: recognizing the validity of the doctrine but holding no equitable tolling on the facts presented
D: holding that equitable tolling applied when the attorney informed his client there was no such thing as a oneyear filing deadline and consistently lied to his client and the clients wife
A.