With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". because the designated country will not accept him or her. In this case, Respondent asserts, it is undisputed that Petitioner entered this country illegally and never adjusted his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. Petitioner argues that the mandatory detention provisions of INA § 236(c) do not apply differently to lawfully admitted aliens and illegal aliens. Petitioner claims that the only difference is that whereas mandatory detention is prescribed for all illegal aliens, mandatory detention for lawfully admitted aliens applies only in cases where the alien is convicted of an aggravated felony for immigration purposes. The Court holds that Petitioner is not subject to the TPCR because he was placed in removal proceedings after April 1, 1997. See Parra, 172 F.3d 954, 955 (<HOLDING>). Petitioner was arrested in January 1999 and

A: holding that governments liability began on june 5 1997
B: recognizing that aliens whose proceedings are commenced with a notice to appear on or after april 1 1997 are subject to removal proceedings under iirira while aliens whose proceedings were commenced with an order to show cause before april 1 1997 were subject to deportation proceedings under prior law
C: holding that because the removal proceeding began after april 1 1997 iirira governed
D: holding that iiriras effective date is april 1 1997
C.