Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and we review de novo the interpretation of purely legal questions. Id. at 1187. We deny the petition for review. Cruz admits that she was aware of an upcoming hearing, but did not contact the immigration court for eighteen years. Although Cruz contacted the government twice during the eighteen years to pursue other forms of relief, she failed to reveal her original alien registration number. The IJ properly determined that Cruz did not establish that the eighteen-year delay in filing the motion “was caused by circumstances beyond [her] control.” Socop-Gonzalez, 272 F.3d at 1193. As Cruz did not act with due diligence, she is not entitled to equitable tolling of her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) . Cruz’s remaining contentions lack merit.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that equitable estoppel requires proof of fraud misrepresentation or affirmative deception
B. holding that aedpas time limitation may be equitably tolled where extraordinary circumstances prevent petitioner from filing a timely petition and where petitioner acts with reasonable diligence
C. holding that the equitable tolling doctrine applies to the 90day period provided in 8 cfr  323bl2000 for filing motions to reopen based on new facts
D. holding that this court  recognizes equitable tolling  on motions to reopen  during periods when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception fraud or error as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence
E. holding that a petitioner must act with due diligence when pursuing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to benefit from equitable tolling of deadlines
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.