Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
had been repealed for aliens placed in removal proceedings on or after April 1, 1997. See IIRIRA § 309(c)(1). At the hearing, the IJ informed Walker and the Huieoeheas that in light of the statutory amendments, the only relief even potentially available to them was a discretionary procedure known as “cancellation of removal.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). An alien must demonstrate ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States prior to applying for this new form of relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A). Furthermore, according to the “stop-time rule,” an alien’s continual presence in the United States is deemed to end once the INS begins removal proceedings by serving a Notice to Appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(l); Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1289 (11th Cir.1999) . Unaware of Huicochea-Gomez’s eleven-month
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that neither aedpa nor iirira expressly repeals the availability of habeas review of deportation or removal orders
B. holding that because petitioners proceedings commenced after the enactment of iirira petitioner was statutorily ineligible for suspension of deportation
C. holding that the new stoptime rule applies to all aliens applying for either suspension of deportation under the old law or cancellation of removal under the iirira amendments
D. holding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review aliens eligibility for special rule cancellation of removal
E. holding that the procedural aspects of iirira  309c apply only to ongoing exclusion or deportation proceedings and are irrelevant in cases involving aliens whose orders of deportation or exclusion were final on the effective date
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.