With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal from the BIA’s affirmance of an IJ’s decision that petitioner failed to timely register for benefits of the ABC settlement agreement); Argueta v. Holder, 617 F.3d 109, 112 n. 2 (2d Cir.2010) (per curiam) (acknowledging that the jurisdictional language in IIRIRA § 309(c)(5)(C)(ii) “make[s] unreviewable by any court a determination by the Attorney General as to whether an alien has satisfied the statutory requirements for special rule cancellation of removal”); Lanuza v. Holder, 597 F.3d 970, 972 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (noting that the language in IIRIRA § 309(c)(5)(C) (ii) “expressly precludes [courts] from reviewing the BIA’s determination of eligibility for NACARA § 203 relief’); Molina Jerez v. Holder, 625 F.3d 1058, 1069 (8th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). We retain jurisdiction over the BIA’s

A: holding that the real id act gave us jurisdiction to review a criminal aliens petition for review of an order of removal raising a question of law
B: holding that we have jurisdiction to review an aliens legal eligibility for relief under former ina  212c
C: holding that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the apa to review the denial of an aliens application for adjustment of status where the alien is in removal proceedings
D: holding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review aliens eligibility for special rule cancellation of removal
D.