Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (emphases added). Section (B)(ii) does not lend itself to the interpretation advocated by the Government. Nowhere is it “specified” that the bond determination is a “discretionary” decision of the Attorney General. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 241.5(b) (2004) (providing that the Attorney General “may require the positing of bond in an amount determined by the [Attorney General] to be sufficient to ensure compliance with the conditions of the order, including surrender for removal,” but failing to “specify” that that determination is “discretionary”), with 8 C.F.R. § 241.5(c) (noting that the Attorney General “may, in his or her discretion, grant employment authorization ....”) (emphasis added). Accord Spencer Enters., Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683, 689-90 (9th Cir.2003) . Simply, it is not “specified” that the bond
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the jurisdictional bar in section bii applies only to acts over which a statute gives the attorney general pure discretion unguided by legal standards or statutory guidelines
B. holding that similar jurisdictional bar precluded review only of administration of statute not of challenge to statute itself
C. recognizing the principle that gives precedence to the terms of the more specific statute where a general statute and a specific statute speak to the same concern
D. holding that the oneyear bar contained in  2255 acts as an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar
E. holding that the jurisdictional bar applies to the denial of deferral of removal under the cat
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.