Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
second suit must be identical with the prior action in four respects: 1) the parties must be the same or in privity; 2) the subject matter must be identical; 3) the capacity or character of persons for or against whom the claim is made must be the same; and 4) the same cause of action must be involved in both suits. Id. Petitioner does not dispute that the above elements are met, but instead argues that an exception to res judicata is applicable in the present case. We agree. {16} Res judicata does not apply where “issues or matters are not determined or are reserved for future adjudication or litigation.” State ex rel. Bliss v. Casarez, 52 N.M. 406, 408, 200 P.2d 369, 370 (1948) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Apodaca, 2003-NMCA-085, ¶ 85, 134 N.M. 77, 73 P.3d 215 . According to Petitioner, the “1999 Order was
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that res judicata does not apply unless the facts and evidence necessary to maintain suit are the same in both actions
B. holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings
C. holding that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to defenses that could have been raised in a prior action
D. holding second action barred by res judicata because plaintiff asserted identical claims and jurisdictional grounds as the first action
E. recognizing the express reservation of the plaintiffs right to maintain a second action as an exception to the doctrine of res judicata
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.