With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374, 106 S.Ct. 1890, 90 L.Ed.2d 369 (1986) (“[A]n agency literally has no power to act ... unless and until Congress confers power upon it.”). We reject Omar’s contention that the INS granted Omar relief that it was without power to provide. Omar further argues that the IJ exceeded the scope of the remand, and that the IJ was, in any event, precluded from considering whether Omar was “lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” Neither of those arguments was presented to the agency, and we decline to consider them for the first time on petition for review. Omar’s drug conviction made him ineligible for § 212(c) relief notwithstanding his adjustment of status. See De La Rosa v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 489 F.3d 551, 553, 555 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Because Omar must thus be “deemed, ab initio,

A: holding that an alien is only lawfully admitted for permanent residence for purposes of the ina if his or her adjustment to lawful permanent resident complied with substantive legal requirements and that because the alien failed to show that she had complied with the relevant substantive legal requirements the ij correctly determined that she had not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence and was not entitled to  212c relief
B: holding that adjustment of status was permitted even if deportable alien had entered the country as a lawful permanent resident
C: holding that the phrase resident alien means an alien lawfully residing in the united states
D: holding that an alien who procured permanent resident status byconcealing his ineligibility had not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence
A.