Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of law and constitutional questions de novo. See Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review. The facts of the case are known to the parties and we do not repeat them here. I Petitioners argue that withdrawal of their applications for admission to the United States is similar to the turn-around at the border experienced by the alien in Tapia v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2005). We disagree. Their decisions to withdraw their applications for admission is more akin to the voluntary departure granted to the alien in Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961 (9th Cir.2003). Moreover, we accord Chevron deference to the BIA’s interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(l)(A) in In re Avilez-Nava, 23 I. & N. Dec. 799, 800-01 (BIA 2005) . The BIA’s “stop-time” rule is a permissible
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an aliens continuous physical presence is broken if the alien was offered and accepted the opportunity to withdraw an application for admission
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. holding that aliens continuous presence in the country was interrupted by voluntary departure under threat of deportation proceedings
D. holding that an alien parent may not establish a derivative claim for asylum by pointing to potential hardship to the aliens united states citizen child in the event of the aliens deportation
E. holding that whether an alien satisfies the continuous presence requirement of 8 usc  1229b is a nondiscretionary determination because it involves straightforward statutory interpretation and application of law to fact and is therefore reviewable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.