Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. See, e.g., Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. We reject Lopez-Castro’s claim that she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on her membership in a particular social group, namely, decent law abiding citizens of El Salvador who share a common immutable fear of the MS 13 and 18th St. gangs whom the government cannot control. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855-56 (9th Cir.2009); Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 860-62 (9th Cir.2009); see also Velasco-Cervantes v. Holder, 593 F.3d 975, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2010)  (citing Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1166
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that government material witnesses do not constitute a particular social group
B. holding that government informants are not members of a particular social group
C. holding that former gang members do not comprise a particular social group
D. holding that persecution of a woman because of her government job or her husbands position as a police officer was not on account of a particular social group
E. holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.