Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
When Wesley and Vergie separated it appears that Wesley returned to live in Earlean’s home where he remained until his death. At the time of his death, Earlean applied for and received widow’s benefits as Wesley’s legal spouse, a step Vergie did not take until eight years later. Moreover, the records of Los Angeles County, where Earlean resided, produced a petition for divorce filed by Wesley, but no final decree. Therefore, although there was no evidence of any further search of court records, there was sufficient substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that the presumption of validity had been overcome. See, e.g., id. (finding substantial evidence to support rebuttal of presumption absent search of court records); Vargas, 9 Cal. App.3d at 475-76, 88 Cal.Rptr. 281 . III. Conclusion We agree with Gallaher,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that search of pertinent public records not required if evidence presented and inferences drawn therefrom show that first marriage is valid
B. recognizing that basis for deportation was aliens misrepresentation about his marriage not the validity of his marriage
C. holding that heck did not bar datzs  1983 unlawful search claim because even if the pertinent search did violate the federal constitution datz conviction might still be valid considering such doctrines as inevitable discovery independent source and harmless error
D. holding that the law to be applied in determining the validity of  an outofstate marriage is the law of the state in which the marriage occurred
E. holding that the belief in a valid religious marriage is insufficient to come within the doctrine
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.