Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Esperanza Robles-Cruz and her husband Jorge Robles-Cruz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review constitutional claims de novo, Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition. The Petitioners contend that it is a violation of equal protection to treat aliens with U.S. citizen relatives differently than aliens without U.S. citizen relatives. We are unpersuaded by this contention because the differential treatment is not wholly irrational. See Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (9th Cir.2002) . PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. ** This
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding statutory classification of victim and a defendant involved in issuance of a protective order did not violate defendants equal protection rights
B. holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection
C. holding that petitioner must show that classification is wholly irrational in order to demonstrate equal protection violation
D. holding proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose required to show equal protection violation
E. holding that a petitioner must show prejudice in order to prevail on a claim that he or she was denied a full and fair hearing in violation of due process
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.