Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), based on an adverse credibility finding. Mejia-Lopez argues that: (1) the IJ did not act as a fair and impartial arbiter because he was predisposed to make an adverse credibility determination; and (2) the adverse credibility provision of the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(C), is unconstitutional on due process grounds. After thorough review, we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. We review de novo our own subject matter jurisdiction. Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir.2007). We lack jurisdiction to review a claim unless the petitioner has exhausted her administrative remedies for that claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir.2006) . We review only the BIA’s decision, except to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia
B. holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider a claim not raised before the bia even when the bia sua sponte considers the claim
C. holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims not raised below by the alien even when the bia reviews the claim sua sponte
D. holding that we generally may not consider issues not raised before the bia
E. holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims that have not been raised before the bia
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.