Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in this court on direct review,” Santos v. Reno, 228 F.3d 591, 597 (5th Cir.2000) (quotation omitted), and asserts that this “requirement of exhaustion” is maintained in the permanent rules by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d). Aplee. Br. at 10-11. But under § 1252(d), “[a] court may review a final order of removal only if — (1) the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right....” Appealing a decision of the BIA through a petition for review is not an administrative remedy-it is a judicial remedy. The government has apparently confused the concept of exhaustion of administrative remedies with the concept of procedural bar. Generally, a habeas petition cannot be used to substitute for direct appeal. Cf. United States v. Warner, 23 F.3d 287, 291 (10th Cir.1994) ; United States v. McBride, 788 F.2d 1429,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that any claim that was raised or could have been raised on direct appeal is barred from review on post conviction under the doctrine of res judicata
B. holding claims must be raised on direct appeal or waived
C. holding that  2255 is not available to test the legality of matters which should have been raised on appeal quotation omitted
D. holding that habeas proceedings are not available to test the legality of matters which should have been raised on direct appeal
E. holding that claims alleging prosecutorial misconduct which were based on facts in the record could have and should have been raised on direct appeal and were thus not cognizable in postconviction proceedings
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.