Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
there was no support in the text or history of § 1252 for such a construction. 533 U.S. at 351, 121 S.Ct. 2268. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s holdings that it lacked jurisdiction over a petition for direct review, and that § 1252 did not preclude the petitioners from pursuing habeas relief in the district court under § 2241. Id. at 349-50, 352, 121 S.Ct. 2268. Thus, we disagree with the government’s argument that Mr. Latu could have raised all the issues in his habeas corpus petition in a petition for direct review. We conclude that Mr. Latu properly filed a timely habeas petition to bring his constitutional claims that were not reviewable on direct review under § `1252(a)(2)(C). See Jurado-Gutierrez v. Greene, 190 F.3d 1135, 1145-47 (10th Cir.1999) . B. Jurisdiction to review discretionary
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that review under  2241 is still available ndtwithstanding language in  1252a2c barring review by any court of final orders of removal for aliens deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense and distinguishing between direct and collateral review
B. holding that noncriminal aliens could seek review of the agencys orders through either a petition for review or a  2241 petition
C. holding that a state court criminal judgment is final for purposes of collateral attack in federal court at the conclusion of review in the united states supreme court or when the time for seeking certiorari review expires
D. holding that the real id act gave us jurisdiction to review a criminal aliens petition for review of an order of removal raising a question of law
E. holding that iirira  309c4g repealed this courts jurisdiction over petitions for review filed by aliens who are deportable for having committed enumerated criminal offenses but did not repeal 28 usc  2241
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.