With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". five years. The issue is thus whether the time Hartman served in prison after the IJ’s improper decision should count toward the five-year bar. The Court holds that it should not count and thus, contrary to the BIA’s ruling in March 2002, the application for § 212(c) relief was not untimely when the IJ addressed the merits of that application on January 25, 2001. 1. The Statutory Five-Year Bar At the outset, the Court addresses Hartman’s argument that the five-year clock stops upon filing an application for § 212(c) relief, which, in this case, would be January 1997. The Court disagrees with that argument. The five-year clock of § 212(c) does not stop when an alien, such as Hartman, files an application for a discretionary waiver. See Gomes v. Ashcroft, 311 F.3d 43, 45 (1st Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Falconi v. INS, 240 F.Supp.2d 215, 218

A: holding that the date of death is relevant date of inquiry for the applicability of section 541a5a
B: holding that the relevant date is not when petitioner filed for  212c relief
C: holding that a lawful permanent resident alien is entitled to seek relief under ina  212c
D: holding that we have jurisdiction to review an aliens legal eligibility for relief under former ina  212c
B.