With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". from 212(c) relief. I would be so inclined, that is, were it not for the fact that I am unconvinced by the dissent's ingenious interpretation of Domond v. U.S. INS, 244 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.2001), and Rankine, 319 F.3d 93. Instead, I read those cases as foreclosing the argument that the conviction of an alien, without more, presents a retroactivity problem. 7 . Moreover, as the tribunals below recognized, even if the IIRIRA and the AEDPA do not apply to Petitioner, the five-year bar would independently preclude him from seeking 212(c) relief. In Buitrago-Cuesta v. INS, 7 F.3d 291, 292 (2d Cir.1993), this court held that the five-year bar applies retroactively to aliens who were convicted before Congress established that bar in 1990. Petitioner maintains, however, that (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). 10 . Although Petitioner is unclear on this

A: holding that all data necessary to show probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant must be contained within the four corners of the affidavit
B: holding that issuance of an order to show cause satisfied this requirement
C: holding in the iirira context that the combination of service of the order to show cause and the issuance of a detainer notice sufficed to begin the 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
C.