Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Naturalization Act (“INA”), as amended by IIRIRA. Gonzalez-Oropeza v. United States Attorney Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir.2003). Petitioner contends that the IJ erred in finding that he was provided proper notice of his removal proceedings because the notice to appear was not sent to his current address. He cites Matter of G-Y-R, 2001 WL 1515819, 23 I & N Dec. 181 (BIA 2001), and its progeny for the proposition that a respondent cannot be ordered removed in absentia where the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) used an old address in serving the notice to appear and failed to warn the respondent of the consequences of failing to inform the government of a change of address. Petitioner also contends that Dominguez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 284 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir.2002) , is distinguishable from his case, in that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the phrase resident alien means an alien lawfully residing in the united states
B. holding that notice to an alien at the most recent address provided by the alien is legally sufficient
C. holding that the ijs failure to inform alien that he is eligible for relief from deportation constitutes due process violation where alien establishes prejudice
D. holding that the alien in that case had not established such circumstances
E. recognizing burden is on alien when alien is removable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.