With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". undisputed that Singh's offense under Or.Rev.Stat. § 166.065(l)(a)(A) was a misdemeanor. See Or.Rev.Stat. § 166.065(3) ("Harassment is a Class B misdemeanor.”). Accordingly, we assess only whether Singh’s offense was a “crime of violence” under § 16(a). 4 . The Ninth Circuit has held that the Taylor categorical approach and the "modified categorical approach” of Taylor’s progeny, such as United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d 905 (9th Cir.2001), and United States v. Franklin, 235 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir.2000), govern the analysis of whether a prior state law conviction was a "domestic offense” such that it qualifies as a predicate offense for alien removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Tokatly, 371 F.3d at 624-25. Contra Flores v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 666, 668, 670-71 (7th Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>). Here, Singh has waived the issue of whether

A: holding that the domestic nature of the offense can be determined without a taylor approach because all aspects of the definition are federal
B: holding that that the trial court erred when it determined that firstdegree sexual offense was an aggravated offense
C: holding that the categorical approach applies to the identical definition of crime of violence in 18 usc  16
D: holding that a domestic relationship must exist as part of the facts giving rise to the predicate offense but it need not be an element of the prior offense
A.