With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". himself to the INS at the border representing that he intended to deliver paper from his warehouse in Michigan to points within the United States using his B-l visa. The INS excluded Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i) for seeking to enter the United States to work without a labor certificate and under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) for seeking to enter the United States without a valid visa. After an exclusion hearing, an immigration judge held that deliveries within the United States of paper that had been stored in the Michigan warehouse using a B-l visa were illegal under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(b)(4)(i)(E)(l). The BIA affirmed the decision of the immigration judge. Petitioner appeals from the BIA to this Court under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). II. Discussi 757, 99 L.Ed. 1107 (1955) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, after the remand from the district

A: holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa
B: holding that statutory notice provisions for notice of default and opportunity to cure were waived by provisions of note as to one obligor though provisions applied to coobligor who used property as residence
C: holding that specific statutory provisions take priority over general statutory provisions
D: holding that ina expressly supersedes hearing provisions of the apa
A.