Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Procedure Act unquestionably provides authority to agencies to adopt mandatory internal administrative appeals. See 5 U.S.C. § 704. Courts have routinely applied the exhaustion doctrine to bar judicial review of underlying merits determinations where a party fails to timely appeal under an agency’s internal regulations. See, e.g., Spitzer Great Lakes Ltd. v. United States EPA, 173 F.3d 412, 414 (6th Cir.1999) (“Because the Board’s order dismissing Spitzer’s administrative appeal was based solely on Spitzer’s failure to comply with the agency’s procedural deadlines, we limit our review to the question of whether the Board abused its discretion in requiring strict compliance with its regulatory deadlines.”); Glisson v. United States Forest Serv., 55 F.3d 1325, 1328 (7th Cir.1995) ; Blevins v. United States DOL, 683 F.2d 139,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that bivens plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies where administrative remedy program provided only for injunctive relief
B. holding that claims not presented to the ij and bia should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
C. holding that partys failure to file a timely internal administrative appeal as required by regulations of the department of agriculture constituted failure to exhaust administrative remedies and precluded judicial action
D. holding that constitutional claims against defendants in their individual capacities were precluded by plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies under pertinent statutory scheme
E. holding that failure to take available appeal to board of immigration appeals constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction to review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.