With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". hardship would result were the petitioner not admitted to the United States. It is an issue of first impression in this circuit whether we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that an alien does not satisfy the extreme-hardship standard of § 1182(i)(l). The REAL ID Act of 2005 instructs us to treat this petition as a petition for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Pub.L. No. 109-13, § 106(d), 119 Stat. 231, 311. Relevant here is subsection (a)(2)(B)(i) of § 1252, which provides that courts lack jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under ... [8 U.S.C. § 1182(i) ].” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®. We have held that the term “judgment” in this subsection refers to discretionary decisions. See De La Vega v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the decisive issue in this case is

A: holding that section 1252a2bii barred jurisdiction of decisions specified by statute as discretionary but did not bar decisions specified by regulation as discretionary
B: holding that  1252a2bs ban on review of judgments regarding the granting of relief precludes review of only discretionary decisions
C: holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss
D: holding explicitly what the court deemed was strongly implied by sepulveda v gonzales 407 f3d 59 2d cir2005namely that discretionary decisions regarding the granting of relief under a provision referenced by  1252a2b are judgments within the meaning of that subsection
D.