With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". requests pending a decision on an alien’s admission, not his deportation. Pursuant to IIRIRA’s effective dates and transition rules, judicial review of bond decisions under § 1252 (1996) govern in this action. See IIRIRA §§ 303(a), 303(b)(1), 309(a) & 309(c)(1) (combining to provide for general rule that new amendments do not apply to those aliens, like Kamara, who were in proceedings before IIRI-RA’s April 1, 1997 effective date). 8 . As Kamara’s claim fails under the pre-IIRIRA abuse of discretion standard, the Court need not reach the government's alternative exhaustion argument for Kamara's failure to appeal his bond determination to the BIA. Several courts, including two in this district, have rejected similar arguments. See Montero v. Cobb, 937 F.Supp. 88, 91-92 (D.Mass.1996) (<HOLDING>); Moskalev v. District Director, Immigration

A: holding exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement inapplicable to predeportation order bond determinations and that federal court thus retained jurisdiction for review of bond decision despite petitioners failure to appeal the decision to the bia
B: holding that taxable costs included only the premium on a surety bond posted on appeal not the fees paid for letters of credit to secure the bond where the state statute and court rule only specifically allowed for premium on any surety bond
C: recognizing that no bond or a nominal bond may be appropriate in cases involving the public interest
D: holding that an appeal is perfected when the appeal bond is filed
A.