With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 8 C.F.R. § 241.7 (DHS may “permit an alien ordered removed ... to depart at his or her own expense to a destination of his or her own choice.”). But there are countervailing considerations as well. Most notably, the appeal waiver system in immigration court raises some troubling due process concerns. Noncitizens — often unrepresented — are asked during the course of the hearing to make a binding decision whether to pursue an appeal. This in-the-moment procedure is not at all how appeal waivers are obtained in other contexts. In federal criminal cases, for example, this court has permitted appeal waivers as part of plea bargains in reliance, in part, on the defendant having sufficient time to consider the matter. See, e.g., United States v. Morris, 633 F.3d 885, 888-89 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). It may well be that due process requires time

A: holding that to demonstrate prejudice resulting from counsels deficient performance that caused a defendant to forgo a favorable plea offer a defendant must show that he would have accepted the offer to plead and that there is a reasonable probability neither the prosecution nor the trial court would have prevented the offer from being accepted or implemented
B: holding that to prove ineffectiveness where defendant rejected plea offer upon advice of counsel defendant must show he would have accepted the offer had counsel advised correctly the state would not have withdrawn its offer the court would have accepted the offer and the resulting sentence would have been less severe
C: holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw guilty plea filed three weeks after entering the plea
D: holding that the governments take it or leave it plea offer including a plea waiver did not violate due process because the defendant had several weeks to consider the offer and this timeframe was not problematic
D.