Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.”) (internal quotation marks and cithtions omitted)/ The purpose of the exhaustion requirement is to avoid our court’s premature interference with' the agency’s processes. See Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d 421, 424 (9th Cir.1995). We have made an exception to the exhaustion requirement for constitutional challenges,to statutes and to the administrative rules of procedure. See Rashtabadi v. INS, 23 F.3d 1562, 1567 (9th Cir.1994) (noting that because the BIA has no jurisdiction to adjudicate constitutional issues, the general rule requiring exhaustion does not preclude petitioners from raising constitutional challenges to the Immigration and Naturalization Act or to the INS’s procedures); see also Ali v. Ashcroft, 346 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir.2003) ; Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that pro se petitioners need not raise issues in ins terms but may raise them as they may have understood them
B. holding that once the court of appeals recognized that the claims of the absent parties were not frivolous as part of the rule 19b inquiry it was error for the court of appeals to address them on their merits when the required entities had been granted sovereign immunity and explaining that the courts consideration of the merits was itself an infringement on foreign sovereign immunity
C. holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders
D. holding that where petitioners did not simply challenge the validity of their orders of removal but had questioned whether the statute grants the ins authority to remove them to a country that cannot accept them the court of appeals retains jurisdiction
E. recognizing that jurors have the right to reject that part of the evidence believed by them to be untrue and to accept that found by them to be true
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.