With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". fact-dependent inquiry that will vary depending on individual circumstances”). Consideration of these factors leads the Court to conclude that Johnson’s due process rights have not been offended by his detention. Johnson was detained for eleven months before an IJ ruled on his removal, an extended period of detention. On December 17, 2012, an IJ ordered Johnson removed. The sole reason that Johnson continues to be in ICE custody is the fact that Johnson chose to appeal the IJ’s removal order. Although Johnson indisputably “has every right to seek any relief from deportation for which he may be eligible, delay caused by his actions does not make continued detention unreasonable or unjustified.” Andreenko, 2010 WL 2900363 at *4; see Doherty v. Thornburgh, 943 F.2d 204, 211 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); see also Diaz, 2011 WL 3422856, at *4

A: holding that petitioneralien could not rely on the extra time resulting from his pursuit of available legal remedies to claim that his prolonged detention violates substantive due process
B: holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights
C: recognizing a plaintiffs  1988 claim predicated on an alleged violation of his substantive due process rights
D: holding that pretrial detention resulting from legal process unsupported by probable cause violates the fourth amendment
A.