Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the period specified by the executive officers. The regulations deny courts this power. Basic principles of administrative law, including the Chevron doctrine, also require us to deny Zazueta-Carrillo’s petition. The BIA has interpreted immigration law to mean that voluntary departure periods begin on the date the BIA enters its order. Here, the BIA specified that Zazueta-Carrillo had to depart “within 30 days ,/toto the date of this order.” (emphasis added). The BIA later determined that Zazueta-Carrillo’s failure to depart within that thirty-day period violated the order. The BIA’s interpretations and applications of the immigration laws are entitled to deference when Congress’s intent is unclear. INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425, 119 S.Ct. 1439, 143 L.Ed.2d 590 (1999)  (internal quotation marks and citations
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding contract with ambiguous terms should not be dismissed on pleadings
B. holding that in the absence of a statutory definition a term should be accorded its ordinary meaning
C. holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation
D. holding regulations entitled to chevron deference
E. holding that the bia should be accorded chevron deference as it gives ambiguous statutory terms concrete meaning through a process of casebycase adjudication
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.