Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
deportation proceedings have been completed.’ Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 226, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2399, 72 L.Ed.2d 786[, 805] (1982) (the bracketed words are substituted for the words ‘child’ or ‘children’ in the original).” St. Joseph’s Hosp., 142 Ariz. 94, '688 P.2d at 991. The St. Joseph’s Hosp. court went on to conclude: “Given these words from the nation’s highest court concerning a field of federal legislation, it is unnecessary to pursue the matter further. There is no federal impediment to an undocumented alien becoming a resident of an Arizona county. We have been cited to no state law which would create such an impediment.” St Joseph’s Hosp., 142 Ariz. 94, 688 P.2d at 992. See also Cabral v. State Bd. of Control, 112 Cal.App.3d 1012, 169 Cal.Rptr. 604, 607 (Cal.Ct.App.1980) . Many other state courts have held that aliens
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that whether alien abandoned domicile for purposes of section 212c turns on whether alien intended to remain elsewhere indefinitely
B. holding that an alien who illegally reenters this country is not eligible for adjustment of status because the reinstatement provision controls
C. holding that adjustment of status was permitted even if deportable alien had entered the country as a lawful permanent resident
D. holding that an alien who entered this country illegally from mexico could establish domicile
E. holding that zadvydas applies to inadmissible aliens who have illegally entered the united states
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.