Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in accordance with administrative law principles.” Gailius v. INS, 147 F.3d 34, 43 (1st Cir.1998). Specifically, we afford Chevron deference to the BIA’s statutory interpretation, applying the agency’s interpretation unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or clearly contrary to law. Mejia-Orellana v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 13, 16 & n. 1 (1st Cir.2007); Maghsoudi v. INS, 181 F.3d 8, 14 (1st Cir.1999). IV. ANALYSIS A. Why the Moral-Turpitude Issue Matters Let us take a step back for a moment. It is uncontested that Idy is presently removable. An adjustment of status could cure this problem, if Idy is eligible. His eligibility for a status adjustment hinges on whether his criminally sanctioned reckless conduct involved moral turpitude: if so, he cannot adjust his status; if not, B.I.A.1976) . Applying Chevron deference, our sister
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that involuntary manslaughter defined either as reckless or negligent was not a crime of moral turpitude because itwas based on unintentional conduct in contrast to those crimes involving some form of evil intent it is not an offense that is mala in se and thus does not fall within the definition of crimes involving moral turpitude
B. holding that assault with a deadly weapon was not a crime involving moral turpitude
C. holding that illinoiss reckless conduct statute establishes a crime involving moral turpitude
D. holding that the bia did not act unreasonably in concluding new yorks first degree reckless endangerment statute is a crime involving moral turpitude
E. holding that robbery under california law categorically qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude and noting precedent in this and other circuits that theft crimes are crimes involving moral turpitude
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.