With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". see also Karouni v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1163, 1171 n. 11 (9th Cir.2005) (stating that if the INS departed from a guidance memorandum or rule without reason, such action could be viewed as arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion). It is undisputed that Landin married his wife after she adjusted to lawful permanent resident status; therefore, Landin does not qualify as a grandfathered alien under established INS rules and policies, which we view as persuasive. Indeed, if grandfathered aliens who adjusted to lawful permanent resident status could impart grandfathered status to relatives acquired after the adjustment occurred, then § 1255(i)’s filing cut-off date would be nullified with respect to those individuals. Cf. Balam-Chuc v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1044, 1049-1050 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). If we were to accept Landin’s interpretation

A: holding that provision has the characteristics of a statute of repose
B: holding the timeliness provision in the habeas corpus statute is subject to equitable tolling
C: holding  1255is april 30 2001 sunset provision was a fixed deadline and that  1255i is a statute of repose not subject to equitable tolling
D: holding that the filing deadline under title vii is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling
C.