With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". due process requirements. And that question is not before us now. As such, I cannot agree that a procedure created and used for § 1226(a) detainees tells us anything about the constitutional adequacy of the procedures governing unreasonably prolonged detention under § 1226(c). Our decision regarding what due process requires in this context perhaps should bear upon the protections owed to § 1226(a) detainees, not the other way around. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit, which has adopted a clear and convincing evidence standard for § 1226(c) detainees, appears to have adopted the same standard for § 1226(a) detainees. See Rodriguez, 804 F.3d at 1087 (applying a clear and convincing evidence standard to a class comprised of aliens detained under § 1226(a) and (c)); Singh, 638 F.3d at 1205 (<HOLDING>). Significant deprivations of liberty warrant

A: holding that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applies in casascastrillon 535 f3d at 948  1226a  bond hearings
B: holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied
C: holding that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applicable in fraud actions does not apply to the proof of misrepresentations under ors 743612
D: holding that the clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies to section 101 challenges
A.