Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
it because Grilauskaite failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if—(1) the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.”); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir.2004) (“failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter” (citation omitted)). Grilauskaite argues here, as she did before the BIA, that she was denied due process because the IJ did not act as a neutral fact-finder. However, we do not have jurisdiction over this claim because it is not a colorable due process claim. Torres-Aguilar v. I.N.S., 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001) . Accordingly, we AFFIRM. ** This disposition
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to invoke our jurisdiction a petitioner must allege at least a colorable constitutional violation
B. holding that a plaintiff in a bivens action must allege that the individual defendant was personally involved in the constitutional violation
C. holding a plaintiffs complaint must allege compliance with the signature and certification requirements of the wyoming constitution in order to invoke the courts subject matter jurisdiction
D. holding that the petitioner could demonstrate its constitutional standing for the first time on judicial review of an order of the land use board of appeals because the need to do so first arose when the petitioner sought to invoke the courts jurisdiction on judicial review
E. holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.