With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 320 F.3d at 1028 (internal quotation marks omitted). I. Quasi-Judicial Immunity for Parole Officers The Supreme Court has reserved deciding whether members of state parole boards have absolute quasi-judicial immunity for their official actions. Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 285 n. 11, 100 S.Ct. 553, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980). We have held, however, that parole board members are entitled to absolute immunity when they perform “quasi-judicial” functions. Anderson, 714 F.2d at 909-10. Thus, parole board officials of the BPT are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for decisions “to grant, deny, or revoke parole” because these tasks are “functionally comparable” to tasks performed by judges. Sellars, 641 F.2d at 1303; Bermudez v. Duenas, 936 F.2d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Absolute immunity has also been extended to

A: holding a parole rule equivalent to a statute
B: holding that parole is not a right in pennsylvania
C: holding that the members of the dc parole board were entitled to absolute immunity against the claim that they violated the parolees constitutional rights when they failed to provide him with a timely parole revocation hearing
D: holding sellars immunity encompasses actions taken when processing parole applications
D.