Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
misinformation, the analysis differs where the government affirmatively misleads an alien about the availability of relief. Cf. Holmberg v. Armbreckt, 327 U.S. 392, 396-97, 66 S.Ct. 582, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) (explaining that equity will toll a statute of limitations because of fraud or concealment). We did not find Copeland’s two-year delay in seeking to exhaust his administrative remedies unreasonable where he had been misinformed by the IJ. This reasoning is equally applicable to Lopez’s failure to seek judicial review in the eighteen months between his final order of deportation and his deportation. Deportation, now removal, is a civil proceeding with its own administrative procedures. See, e.g., INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1048-50, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984) . Because it is an administrative process,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil deportation proceedings and noting the rules incompatibility with the streamlined administrative nature of such proceedings
B. holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings
C. holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings
D. holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings
E. holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.