Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for permanent residence. § 1255(i)(2). An applicant for adjustment of status under § 1255(f) must establish that he is not inadmissible under any provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or that he is eligible for a waiver of any applicable ground of inadmissibility. Sattani, 749 F.3d at 371. The INA provides that an alien is ineligible to receive an immigrant visa and is inadmissible if he was unlawfully in this country for more than one year and then “enters or attempts to reenter the United States without being admitted.” INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)). Such aliens are not entitled to an adjustment of status. Mortera-Cruz v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 246, 256 (5th Cir.2005); see also In re Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355, 371 (BIA 2007) . Verdugo’s assertion that the IJ incorrectly
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a legal determination regarding an aliens eligibility for adjustment of status was not barred by the statute
B. holding that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the apa to review the denial of an aliens application for adjustment of status where the alien is in removal proceedings
C. recognizing that an alien is ineligible for relief under  212c if he was not actually admissible at the time he received an adjustment of status
D. holding ineligible for adjustment of status alien who was inadmissible due to reentry after prior removal
E. holding that aliens inadmissible under  1182a 9c i i are ineligible for adjustment of status under  1255f
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.