Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
process disrupts the process, see e.g., Acura v. Reich, 90 F.3d 1403, 1408-09 (9th Cir.1996); Federal Trade Comm’n v. Standard Oil Co., 449 U.S. 232, 242, 101 S.Ct. 488, 66 L.Ed.2d 416 (1980) (stating that judicial intervention before the agency process is final “denies the agency an opportunity to correct its own mistakes and to apply its expertise.”), this Court holds that aliens like Petitioner still have a right to petition a district court for a writ of habeas corpus and the Court has jurisdiction to review such petitions, especially where they involve constitutional challenges to statutes. See e.g., Parra v. Perryman, 172 F.3d 954 (7th Cir.1999); Hinojosa-Perez v. Eddy, 55 F.Supp.2d 1001, —, slip op. at 7 (D.Alaska 1999); cf. Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110, 120 (1st Cir.1998) ; Henderson v. Immigration & Naturalization
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the new stoptime rule applies to all aliens applying for either suspension of deportation under the old law or cancellation of removal under the iirira amendments
B. holding that iirira does not bar us from staying removal orders pending resolution of petitions for review
C. recognizing that after iirira habeas review remains available  to raise substantial constitutional questions
D. holding that neither aedpa nor iirira expressly repeals the availability of habeas review of deportation or removal orders
E. holding that the procedural aspects of iirira  309c apply only to ongoing exclusion or deportation proceedings and are irrelevant in cases involving aliens whose orders of deportation or exclusion were final on the effective date
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.