Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
unconstitutional as violative of his right to equal protection. After careful consideration, for substantially the same reasons stated in the district court's March 13, 2003 order, we `conclude that the district court did' not err in holding that Mr. Latu suffered no prejudice from the defects in the notice. The defects were cor rected and Mr. Latu was given all the time he needed to meet the charges. We reject Mr. Latu’s argument that, because the initial notice was defective, the attorney general’s subsequent acts in effecting his removal were ultra vires. An official act does not become ultra vires if the officer was statutorily empowered to act but may have acted erroneously. See Wyoming v. United States, 279 F.3d 1214, 1229-30 (10th Cir.2002); cf. Noriega-Lopez, 335 F.3d at 883 . Mr. Latu received all the process he was due.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the bia rule is reasonable
B. holding that the ex post facto clause does not apply to deportation orders because deportation however severe its consequences has been consistently classified as a civil rather than a criminal procedure
C. holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte
D. holding that because congress did not specifically state that deportation terminates supervised release it remains intact even after an aliens deportation
E. holding that bia acted ultra vires because statute did not give it authority to issue deportation orders
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.