With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in Gonzalez v. Chertoff, 454 F.3d 813 (8th Cir.2006), that the reasoning of Alvarez-Portillo is overruled. In Gonzalez, we held an alien who failed to apply for adjustment of status before IIRIRA’s enactment, based on a pre-IIRIRA marriage, was subject to the new expedited removal proceedings under IIRIRA. See Gonzalez, 454 F.3d at 814-15, 816-18 & n. 4. After discussing Fernandez-Vargas at length, we determined "the Supreme Court in Femandez-Vargas found that the elimination of the opportunity to apply for adjustment of status under [IIRIRA] imposed no new burden on a completed act.” Id. at 818. We stated "[w]e find that decision determinative on the issue of retroactivity in the instant case.” Id. We then noted, "To the extent our decision in Alvarez-Portillo, 280 F.3d at 861 (<HOLDING>), suggests a different result, it is overruled

A: holding that the substantive defenses to removal eliminated by 8 usc  1231a5  may not be retroactively denied to aliens who illegally reentered prior to enactment
B: holding that a change of an element of an offense could not be applied retroactively to a crime committed prior to the statutes enactment
C: holding that zadvydas applies to inadmissible aliens who have illegally entered the united states
D: holding that sjection 241a5  bars aliens who have illegally reentered the united states after having previously been deported from applying for relief
A.