With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". wholly independent right the resolution of which demands the exercise of a judicial power substantially different in scope than the power to decide a particular claimant’s entitlement to compensation under the Vaccine Act. What petitioners seek is a declaratory-judgment respecting the constitutional legitimacy of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-14(c) — the statute that authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations modifying the Vaccine Injury Table. That relief raises an issue that is intimately tied to the power to review the Secretary’s regulations and, as such, it is an issue appropriate for consideration by a United States court of appeals pursuant to Section 300aa-32 of the Vaccine Act. See Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm’n, 330 U.S. 127, 138-139, 67 S.Ct. 544, 551-552, 91 L.Ed. 794 (1947) (<HOLDING>) The issue lies beyond our jurisdiction to hear

A: holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders
B: holding that the improper appointment of a judge to a case deprived the court of jurisdiction to rule on any motions pending before that judge the orders entered by that judge were entered without jurisdiction of the court and were thus void
C: holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc  1291
D: recognizing that a court granted jurisdiction by statute to review the legality of administrative orders is also empowered to examine the constitutionality of the statute by virtue of which such orders were entered
D.