With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". failed to satisfy his burden of rebutting the INS’ prima facie evidence of alien-age by “corroborat[ing] his claim to citizenship” with a “preponderance of credible evidence.” Murphy asks this panel to grant his petition for review and vacate the order of deportation. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review to determine whether the deportation order is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4); Trias-Hernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d 366, 370 (9th Cir.1975). In a deportation proceeding, the government must prove alienage by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.” Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 281, 284-85, 87 S.Ct. 483, 485, 487-88, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966); Ramon-Sepulveda v. INS, 743 F.2d 1307, 1308 n. 2 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). DISCUSSION Murphy’s claim that the BIA’s

A: holding that in reviewing a defendants motion for judgment of acquittal based on insanity which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the court must determine whether no reasonable jury could have failed to find that the defendants criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence
B: holding that the government must prove alienage by clear convincing and unequivocal evidence of foreign birth before the burden shifts to the respondent to rebut by demonstrating legal entry
C: holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence
D: holding that under former 8 usc  1252bc1 the government has the burden of demonstrating by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence that an alien or a responsible person at her address signed the certified mail return receipt for her osc
B.