Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
necessary — for Congress to stipulate time frames in which amnesty-like provisions, such as the exception for family-smugglers, apply. See generally Mathews, 426 U.S. 67, 96 S.Ct. 1883, 48 L.Ed.2d 478. It is also not wholly irrational for Congress to distinguish between aliens based on their family connection to legalized United States residents, in furtherance of a general amnesty scheme. B. International Law Claims Mr. Ayala-Caballero also asserts that, in making its determination the BIA failed sufficiently to consider the best interest of his citizen children. Citing a district court case for support, Ayala-Caballero asserts that this failure contravenes customary international law principles as incorporated in federal law. See Beharry v. Reno, 183 F.Supp.2d 584 (E.D.N.Y.2002) . This court’s recent decision in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that federal common law is the law that would govern in the absence of the warsaw convention
B. holding that article 3 of the united nations convention on the rights of the child has attained the status of customary international law and is therefore incorporated in federal law
C. holding that the rights and duties of the united states on commercial paper which it issues are governed by federal law and that in the absence of an applicable act of congress it is for the federal courts to fashion the governing rule of law according to their own standards
D. holding that atca establishes cause of action for violations of international law but requiring the district court to perform a traditional choiceoflaw analysis to determine whether international law law of forum state or law of state where events occurred should provide substantive law in such an action
E. holding that trial court did not err in basing decision on local customary law rather than common law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.