Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
§ 1252. Whether a conviction is a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) is a question of law we review de novo. Espino-Castillo v. Holder, 770 F.3d 861, 863 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not err in determining that Paz-Valadez’s conviction for knowingly possessing a false identification document with intent to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(4) is categorically a CIMT because “intent ... to defraud” is an element of the crime. See Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 719 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A crime involves fraudulent conduct, and thus is a [CIMT], if intent to defraud is either explicit in the statutory definition of the crime or implicit in the nature of the crime.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Espino-Castillo, 770 F.3d at 864 . Paz-Valadez’s argument that his conviction is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the longstanding rule that crimes that have fraud as an element are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude and a court may not apply the modified categorical approach if the statute proscribes only conduct that involves moral turpitude
B. holding that a district court cannot use the psrs factual statements when applying the modified categorical approach
C. recognizing that a court may not apply the modified categorical approach if the statute proscribes only conduct that involves moral turpitude internal quotation marks omitted
D. holding that we need not remand to the bia so that it may apply the categorical approach
E. holding that an intentional battery that involves the use of a deadly weapon constitutes a crime of moral turpitude
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.