Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the time of filing. See Quality Fabrication, 2003 Ct. Int’l Trade LEXIS 27, at *2. Miller did so because she was affirmatively instructed by government officials that the DOL website was the appropriate source of information. See id. at *13. Miller subsequently emailed her regional Labor office to inquire about her petition. See id. at *2. Two days later, Miller received an email response from Labor stating “ ‘these things take time.’ ” Id. Miller, however, pursued this action pro-actively in that she contacted: (1) two local Representatives from Congress; (2) the State of Pennsylvania Department of Labor Trade Adjustment Representative; (3) a state legislator; and (4) Labor’s NAFTA-TAA office located in Washington, D.C. See id. at *2-*4. In addition to these extens LEXIS 27 at *2 — *5 . Plaintiffs, acting in a reasonably prudent
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiffs extensive efforts to inquire as to the status of the relevant naftataa petition were sufficient to satisfy the due diligence standard
B. holding that an applicant who fails to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal
C. holding that foresight not retrospect is the standard of diligence
D. holding that defendant dentists were not entitled to summary judgment in malpractice actions commenced more than two years after the relevant dental procedures where factual questions remained as to the plaintiffs diligence
E. holding that affidavit submitted to the court after the plaintiffs motion to remand was sufficient to cure the defect in the removal petition
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.