Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Tan, 446 F.3d at 1377; see also Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223, 1238 (11th Cir.2007) (remanding because “the IJ failed to render a reasoned decision ... and [did] not appear to have considered evidence in the record”). We therefore remand to the agency for it to consider the entire record in evaluating Ms. Seek’s petition. We do not reach the question of whether Ms. Seek, as a mother who opposes the practice of FGM on her daughter, falls within a “particular social group” for purposes of withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). This question was not reached by the BIA, and it is most appropriately considered by the agency in the first instance. See Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183, 186-87, 126 S.Ct. 1613, 1614-15, 164 L.Ed.2d 358 (2006) (per curiam) . Upon remand, the BIA should address this
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the ninth circuit looks to state contract law to determine whether an arbitration award is valid
B. holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address in the first instance
C. holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency in the first instance to address
D. holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address it in the first instance
E. holding it was improper for ninth circuit to determine that an aliens family constituted a particular social group for asylum purposes because proper course was to remand issue to board for initial determination
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.