Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
doctor make multiple submissions to confirm compliance with the medical practice requirement before the doctor can obtain LPR status. See 8 C.F.R. § 245.18(g), (h). III. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Immigrant Doctors are all medical doctors licensed to practice medicine in their respective jurisdictions in the United States. The doctors seek to adjust to LPR status based on second preference employment-based immigrant visa petitions filed by their employers in conjunction with national interest waiver requests. Though the Immigrant Doctors’ original complaint named eight doctor plaintiffs when it was filed in 2002, four doctors have since obtained LPR status, rendering their claims moot. See Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (9th Cir.1984) . A. Plaintiffs 1. Dr. Stefan Schneider Dr.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding moot appeal from revocation of visa petition where immigrant subsequently obtained lpr status
B. holding that the beneficiary of a form 1130 visa petition did not have standing to challenge a denied petition
C. holding appeal moot on this basis
D. holding the bia did not err in affirming the ijs denial of a continuance request where there was no prima facie approvable visa petition pending and alien had not applied for status adjustment
E. holding that where an alien was ineligible for a visa as a matter of law his citizenship was illegally procured and subject to revocation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.