Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of a motion to reopen and review de novo claims of due process violations including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). Jurisdiction is proper under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. The BIA has established several procedural requirements for aliens seeking to reopen their removal proceedings based on a claim that they were denied due process because of the ineffective assistance of their attorney. See Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 639. Petitioners concede that they did not satisfy the hozada requirements, but argue that compliance is unnecessary because their former counsel’s ineffectiveness is obvious on the face of the record. See Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 525-26 (9th Cir.2000) . To demonstrate ineffective assistance of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be raised on direct appeal when the facts supporting the claim are presented on the face of the record
B. holding that failure to comply with the hozada requirements is not fatal where the alleged ineffective assistance is plain on the face of the administrative record
C. holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record
D. holding that the petitioner was not entitled to claim ineffective assistance because she did not comply with the lozada requirements and made no effort to explain her lack of compliance
E. holding that the bias reasonable rules for the normal ineffective assistance claim do not apply where facts demonstrating an attorneys ineffectiveness are not plain on the face of the administrative record
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.