With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). Garces, of course, is not controlling precedent in this circuit. In any event, Garces itself recognizes no categorical prohibition on the consideration of a vacated Alford plea. See 611 F.3d at 1347 (observing that neither case law nor Fed. R.Evid. 410 “categorically bars the BIA from considering [defendant’s] withdrawn plea for any purpose”). Indeed, our court has summarily observed that § 1182(a)(2)(C) “places no qualification upon the basis of knowledge or belief that an alien has engaged in drug trafficking.” Neptune v. Holder, 346 Fed.Appx. 671, 673 (2d Cir.2009) (emphasis in original). The focus of concern in Garces was how much evidentiary weight the guilty plea could bear under the circumstances. See 611 F.3d at 1347; see also id. at 1347-49 (<HOLDING>). Although the BIA here noted the IJ’s

A: holding that a defendants guilty plea was unconditional where the guilty plea was not in writing and the government did not consent to it being conditional
B: holding that the movant failed to establish that plea counsel coerced him to plead guilty to avoid taking the case to trial
C: holding failure to advise of right to compel witnesses and plead not guilty are not required by boykin and there is absolutely no requirement that defendant be advised of any other rights in order to be able to enter a valid guilty plea
D: holding that plea carried little or no probative weight where record lacked indication that defendant made any admissions and florida law permitted defen dants to plead guilty without swearing to underlying facts
D.