With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Noriega-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 874, 884 (9th Cir.2003) (“[T]he BIA’s lack of authority to enter Noriega-Lopez’s removal order renders that component of his proceedings ‘in essence, a legal nullity.’ ”) (quoting Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971 F.2d 414, 417 (9th Cir.1992)). III. CONCLUSION Our decision to vacate the removal order does not prevent the Service from issuing a new Notice to Appear. But, because the first NTA was the subject of a final judgment on the merits, res judicata bars the Service from “initiating a second deportation case on the basis of a charge thatfit] could have brought in the first case,” but did not. Bravo-Pedroza v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 1358, 1358 (9th Cir.2007) (emphasis added); see also Ramon-Sepulveda v. INS, 824 F.2d 749, 750-51 (9th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Should the Service decide to initiate new

A: holding res judicata also applies to those in privity with parties
B: holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings
C: holding that lear does not abrogate general principles of res judicata or the res judicata effect of a consent decree regarding patent validity
D: holding that res judicata applies when the question of jurisdiction is raised and determined
B.