Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
509 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1989). There is no question that the proceedings before the ISP Resentencing Panel implicate important state interests. However, there is a real question over whether there is an adequate opportunity, even if the proceedings can be considered judicial in nature, for the Plaintiff to raise constitutional challenges. This is because there is no opportunity for the Plaintiff to appeal the decisions of the ISP Panel to any New Jersey court and present his constitutional arguments to such a court. Without an opportunity to appeal to a true New Jersey state court it is likely that the Plaintiff will not be afforded an adequate opportunity to raise his constitutional challenges. See Amanatullah v. Colorado Bd. of Medical Examiners, 187 F.3d 1160, 1164 (10th Cir.1999) ; Port Auth. Police Benevolent Ass’n, 973 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is no right to habeas review of administrative evidentiary determinations before a district court where direct review of the administrative proceedings is available in the appellate courts
B. holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable
C. holding alien not denied judicial review because habeas was available
D. holding that there was adequate opportunity when state court judicial review of an administrative proceeding was available
E. holding that judicial review is not available of the governments certification under 18 usc  5032  as required to initiate a juvenile delinquency proceeding that inter alia an appropriate court of a state  does not have available programs and services adequate for the needs of juveniles
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.