With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the application so that it may be completed, and naturalization accomplished, before the child’s eighteenth birthday. Due to an INS clerk’s error, however, petitioner’s application was not expedited, and when his son turned eighteen before the petition had been completely processed, the INS denied his application on that basis ... Thus, but for the INS’ error in failing to expedite the application, as was its usual practice, petitioner’s son would have been naturalized. Equitable principles do not require this Court to approve the denial of the naturalization of petitioner’s son due to an error of the INS’ own making; this Court, therefore, holds that the INS is estopped from denying the application. Tubig, 559 F.Supp. at 3-4 (citing Villena v. INS, 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>)); Sun Il Yoo v. INS, 534 F.2d 1325 (9th

A: holding that a fiftyfive day gap was a lengthy delay
B: holding that a 15month delay of which four months were unexplained was reasonable in a felony prosecution
C: holding delay of two years and four months lengthy enough to warrant review of other factors
D: holding that unexplained and lengthy delay in processing an applicants petition for naturalization amounts to affirmative misconduct which operated to estop ins from deporting petitioner due to a change in his status which arose from the delay
D.