Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to the 90-day time period, the BIA does not abuse its discretion in denying the untimely motion to reopen. Abdi, 430 F.3d at 1150. Additionally, the BIA may deny a motion to reopen even if the alien establishes a prima facie case for relief. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). In this case, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Likollari’s motion to reopen. As the record shows, the majority of the evidence presented could have been presented during his asylum proceedings, and the remainder of the evidence failed to establish changed country conditions. First, the affidavit of Likollari’s attorney, Marina Meyerovich, could not be considered evidence of changed circumstances because an attorney’s arguments are not evidence. Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I. & N. Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980) . Similarly, Likollari’s sister’s and parents’
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that arguments which are not sufficiently developed are waived
B. holding that attorneys and not clients choose the arguments to present
C. holding that an attorneys arguments are not evidence
D. holding that arguments not raised in district court are waived
E. holding that arguments not raised before the trial court are waived
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.