Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by an alien against whom deportation proceedings are pending: “no person shall be naturalized against whom there is outstanding a final finding of deportability pursuant to a warrant of arrest ...; and no petition for naturalization shall be considered by the Attorney General if there is pending against the petitioner a deportation proceeding pursuant to a warrant of arrest.” 8 U.S.C. § 1429 (emphasis added). INS argues that under the revised naturalization scheme, section 1429 operates to divest district courts of the jurisdiction section 1421(c) provides to review administrative denials of naturalization applications: This is somewhat of a novel issue, and the few courts that have addressed the question have disagreed. Compare Mosleh v. Strapp, 992 F.Supp. 874, 876 (N.D.Tex.1998)  with Gatcliffe v. Reno, 23 F.Supp.2d 581,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding agency action is final where there are no deportation proceedings pending in which the decision might be reopened or challenged
B. holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case
C. holding that section 1429 does not divest district court of jurisdiction when deportation proceedings are pending
D. holding that district courts lack jurisdiction to review denied applications when deportation proceedings are pending
E. holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.