With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". focus has changed since the time Kamara filed this action in August 1997, in light of the BIA’s final order of deportation issued on October 27, 1997. Prior to the passage of IIRIRA, this Court had jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General concerning detention both prior and subsequent to a final order of deportation, upon a conclusive showing in a habeas corpus proceeding that the Attorney General was not proceeding with “reasonable dispatch.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a), 1252(c). Here, Kamara has made no such claim. Moreover, as the INS points out, Kamara has at no time exercised his right to present his changed medical condition as a basis for a custody redetermination. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.19(e); see also In the Matter of Ghalamsiah, 806 F.2d 68, 73 (3d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). For aliens in deportation proceedings after

A: holding that district courts lack jurisdiction to review denied applications when deportation proceedings are pending
B: holding that pursuant to 8 usc  1252c the attorney general has the exclusive discretionary authority to release on bail an alien not illegally detained pending a motion to reopen the deportation proceedings subject to review by a district court
C: holding that habeas review is  for any alien held in custody pursuant to an order of deportation
D: holding that a motion to reopen seeking only to apply for a form of relief which was unavailable to the movant at the time of the hearing  is subject to the regulatory requirements governing motions to reopen
B.