With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". statutory language and the legislative history, that the seven years of domicile need not occur after attainment of permanent residency status. See Lok v. INS, 548 F.2d 37, 39 — 41 (2d Cir.1977). Recently, the Seventh Circuit has agreed with the Second Circuit’s approach. See Castellon-Contreras v. INS, 45 F.3d 149, 152-54 (7th Cir.1995). Just this year, the Fifth Circuit ruled in accord with the Second and Seventh Circuits on this issue. See White v. INS, 75 F.3d 213 (5th Cir.1996). The Ninth Circuit has wavered. In Castillo-Felix v. INS, 601 F.2d 459 (9th Cir.1979), it deferred to the BIA’s interpretation, but it has since modified this position somewhat, creating an exception for children of aliens in a ease analogous to this one, see Lepe-Guitron v. INS, 16 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Most recently, that court held that aliens

A: holding that where a temporary order is later made permanent the permanent order may be challenged
B: holding that aliens who as minor children lived with permanent resident parents before independently attaining permanent resident status may count that period toward section 212cs sevenyear domicile requirement
C: holding that a lawful permanent resident alien is entitled to seek relief under ina  212c
D: holding that an alien who procured permanent resident status byconcealing his ineligibility had not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence
B.