Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Francisco J. Cosio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006). We review de novo, Molinar-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002), and deny the petition for review. Cosio’s 1988 conviction for possession for sale of a controlled substance constitutes an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) (defining illicit trafficking in a controlled substance as an aggravated felony); see also Aragon-Ayon v. INS, 206 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir.2000) . Cosío was not eligible for a discretionary
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that 1996 amendment to definition of aggravated felony applies retroactively
B. holding that congress clearly manifested an intent for the amended definition of aggravated felo ny to apply retroactively to all defined offenses whenever committed
C. holding that the expanded definition of aggravated felony applies retroactively in actions taken on or after september 30 1996
D. holding that  212c applies to all applications for relief filed after november 29 1990 regardless of when conviction occurred for offenses within the original definition of aggravated felony
E. holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.