With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the disciplinary charges against him, despite the Director’s attempts to contact respondent by personal service, mail, telephone, and publication. In similar prior cases, we have reviewed efforts by the Director to contact other respondents that were comparable to those used in this matter, and have held that the Director took all reasonable steps to locate and notify a respondent. See, e.g., In re Pottenger, 567 N.W.2d 713, 716 (Minn.1997)’; In re Strom, 551 N.W.2d 715, 717-18 (Minn.1996); In re Morin, 469 N.W.2d 714, 716 (Minn.1991). Rule 13(b), RLPR provides that where, as here, the respondent fails to answer, the allegations in the petition shall be deemed admitted. See Pottenger, 567 N.W.2d at 716; Morin, 469 N.W.2d at 716; see also In re Sampson, 408 N.W.2d 574, 577 (Minn.1987) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the allegations establish

A: holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice
B: holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice
C: holding that claims are not ripe due to appellants failure to apply for a variance and receive a final decision from the board
D: holding due process is not violated when failure to receive notice is the result of attorneys decision to abandon law practice
D.