Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
removable. This distinction is important because the BIA’s reopening of a case vacates the final order of removal and reopens the administrative removal proceedings. See id. During administrative removal proceedings, the government has the burden of proving by “clear and convincing evidence” that the petitioner is subject to removal on the basis of his convictions. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A); see also Pickering v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 525, 527 (6th Cir.2006) (concluding that, once the petitioner produces evidence that his conviction has been vacated, “the [pjetitioner is deportable only if the* government can show, with clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence, that the conviction was vacated solely for immigration reasons”); Cruz-Garza v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 1125, 1130 (10th Cir.2005) ; Sandoval v. INS, 240 F.3d 577, 581 (7th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in a case where the petitioner obtained postconviction relief reducing his felony conviction to a misdemeanor the evidence of record is legally insufficient to satisfy the inss stringent burden of proof and thus  the order for removal must be reversed
B. holding petitioners failure to present any witnesses or submit the trial record into evidence at hearing led to conclusion that petitioner did not meet his burden of proof for postconviction relief
C. recognizing that evidence may be legally insufficient where there is variance between indictment allegations and proof
D. holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant
E. holding evidence legally insufficient
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.