With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the district court abused its discretion in denying this motion. 2 . If Arango was not a lawful permanent resident at the time of his naturalization because of his fraudulent marriage, then his citizenship was illegally procured. See Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 514, 101 S.Ct. 737 (“[A] naturalized citizen’s failure to comply with the statutory prerequisites for naturalization renders his certificate of citizenship revocable as 'illegally procured’ under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a).... 8 U.S.C. §§ 1427(a) and 1429[] require[] an applicant for citizenship to be lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence”). 3 . We have previously recognized that the government can be bound by a cooperation agreement in the immigration context. See Thomas v. INS, 35 F.3d 1332, 1337 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Although the government now argues that,

A: holding that amtrak is an agency of the government  for purposes of the constitutional obligations of government
B: holding that ignorance by one prosecutor of promise made by another is irrelevant since the prosecutors office is an entity and  a promise made by one attorney must be attributed for these purposes to the government
C: holding that the alien was entitled to performance by the government of its promise that the government would not oppose any of his motions for relief from deportation
D: holding that it is not within the province of any court unless expressly authorized by law to review the determination of the political branch of the government to exclude a given alien
C.