Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to reopen deportation proceedings, arguing that she was not removable because her assault charge fell within the “petty offense” exception of INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), and could not therefore be construed as a crime involving moral turpitude. The BIA denied that motion, and Membreno timely appealed. Discussion The Immigration and Nationality Act deprives a court of jurisdiction to review “any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in section 1182(a)(2).” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). This section also deprives a court of jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions denying motions to reopen or reconsider such final orders. See Sarmadi v. INS, 121 F.3d 1319, 1321 (9th Cir.1997) . Section 1182(a)(2) renders “any alien
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that withdrawal of judicial review over final orders of deportation also withdraws jurisdiction from motions to reconsider or reopen
B. holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders
C. holding that the criminal jurisdiction bar applies to the denials of motions to reopen
D. holding that bia denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion
E. recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.