With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Pablo Zarrabal Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review. Zarrabal contends that the agency violated his right to equal protection by not allowing him to apply for suspension of deportation. This contention is unavailing because Zarrabal was served with a notice to appear in 2001, when suspension of deportation was no longer available. See Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107-08 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594,

A: recognizing detention during deportation proceedings as a constitutionally valid aspect of the deportation process
B: holding that being placed in removal proceedings rather than deportation proceedings does not violate a petitioners due process rights
C: holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings
D: holding that doctrine does not violate due process
B.