With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that tribal membership is the common thread and evidentiary means of establishing Indian status. See Broncheau, 597 F.2d at 1263(observing this, and noting that the defendant admitted he was enrolled and never suggested he did not understand the term “Indian” as it applied to him). So far as I can tell, no court has ever held that an adult could have Indian legal status who was neither enrolled or eligible for enrollment, nor entitled to tribal or government benefits due only to Indians. Indeed, enrollment — or at a mini mum, eligibility -for enrollment — may be constitutionally required to avoid equal protection problems because otherwise, enforcement of federal criminal laws would arguably be based on an impermissible racial classification. See Antelope, 430 U.S. at 646, 97 S.Ct. 1395(<HOLDING>); Keys, 103 F.3d at 761 (noting that Antelope

A: holding federal government could not prosecute an american indian who on indian territory had murdered another member of his tribe as federal statute excluded such crime from federal criminal jurisdiction in favor of allowing the indians to engage in selfgovernment ie the regulation by themselves of their own domestic affairs the maintenance of order and peace among their own members by the administration of their own laws and customs
B: holding that there was no constitutional problem because defendants were not subjected to federal criminal jurisdiction under  1153 on account of their indian race but because they are enrolled members of the coeur dalene tribe
C: holding that evidence of having filed an application for enrollment in the yurok tribe and previous entry on the pawnee tribal roll and the fact that defendants had held themselves out to be indians within the meaning of  1153 established indian status under  1153
D: holding that where the address problem is the fault of the alien there is no constitutional problem with the agencys procedures and no basis for judicial relief
B.