With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that only objectively reasonable reliance on prior law is necessary to sustain a retroactivity challenge. For that reason, on the second issue we d ir.2004) (“not[ing] that, under St. Cyr, the [alien] need not demonstrate actual reliance upon the immigration laws in order to demonstrate an impermissible retroactive effect”); Ponnapula v. Ashcroft, 373 F.3d 480, 493 (3d Cir.2004) (“the Supreme Court has avoided an ‘actual reliance’ formulation in favor of a ‘reasonable reliance’ formulation in its retroactivity analysis”); see also Garcia-Ramirez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 935, 943-44 (9th Cir.2005) (two-judge concurrence in panel decision disposed of on other ground; holding in the context of a non § 212(c) IIRIRA retroactivity (same); Dias v. INS, 311 F.3d 456, 458 (1st Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) (citing Mattis v. Reno, 212 F.3d 31, 38 (1st

A: holding that iiriras repeal of  212c was not impermis sibly retroactive to petitioners who did not rely on preiirira law because the retroactivity analysis must include an examination of reliance
B: holding that the act is not retroactive
C: holding that the repeal of ars  134035 is procedural and not substantive and therefore fully retroactive
D: holding iiriras preclusion of application for relief constitutes a new disability and is impermissibly retroactive
A.