Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than ten years immediately preceding the date of the application for cancellation of removal; (2) has been a person of good moral character during such period; (3) has not been convicted of certain criminal offenses; and (4) can establish that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent or child, who is a permanent resident or citizen of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l). An alien is precluded from establishing the required good moral character if he or she has “been confined, as a result of conviction, to a pen alysis applies to decisions regarding eligibility for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. See, e.g., Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8, 19-20 (1st Cir.2005) ; Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941, 948 (6th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the trial court is not precluded from enforcing its judgment even though an appeal is pending
B. recognizing burden is on alien when alien is removable
C. holding that a determination that precluded an alien from even applying for relief under section 1255 is a purely legal question that is reviewable
D. holding that for purposes of section 523a2b the reasonableness of a creditors reliance is a question of fact which is reviewable only for clear error
E. holding that whether a city has the authority to enact a particular statutory scheme is a purely legal question
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.