Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
re Marc Antoine Fenelon, No. A038 921 625 (B.I.A. Jan. 14, 2016), aff'g No. A038 921 625 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 14, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed the decisions of both the IJ and BIA “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Despite Fenelon’s assertions otherwise, we lack jurisdiction to review a final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a controlled substance offense. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, 782 F.3d 81, 86 (2d Cir. 2015) . Nevertheless, we retain jurisdiction to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the jurisdictional bar applies as long as an alien is removable regardless of whether the predicate offense was the reason for removal
B. holding a decision under the cat to deny even deferral of removal does not fall within the jurisdictionstripping provisions of either  1252a2b or  1252a2c
C. holding substantial evidence supported the denial of cat relief where the petitioners cat claim was based on the same testimony the ij found not credible and the petitioner pointed to no other evidence that the ij should have considered
D. holding that the jurisdiction stripping provision found at 8 usc  1252a2c applies only to removal orders not to applications for asylum withholding of removal or cat relief
E. holding that the jurisdictional bar applies to the denial of deferral of removal under the cat
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.