With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". clear that Buitrago-Cuesta remains good law with respect to this case, where the conviction was obtained after a trial, see Reid v. Holmes, 323 F.3d 187, 189 (2d Cir.2003) (per curiam). 8 . Even if Petitioner were correct, it might be that the five-year bar would independently preclude him from 212(c) eligibility. Buitra-go-Cuesta seemingly did not address whether the five-year bar applies retroactively to pending proceedings, and, in view of our holding, see infra, that Petitioner's removal proceedings commenced in 1998, we need not consider whether it does. 9 . Since both the service and filing of the Notice to Appear occurred after April 1, 1997, we need not address an issue that has divided some circuits. Compare, e.g., Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Armendariz-Montoya v. Sonchik, 291 F.3d 1116,

A: holding in the iirira context that service of the notice to appear was on the facts of that case sufficient to start proceedings
B: holding that the filing of an opening brief within the time period for filing a notice of appeal could constitute notice of appeal
C: holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings
D: holding that for purposes of the iirira proceedings commence only upon the inss filing of a notice to appear with the immigration court
D.