Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lin’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, as it was his second motion to reopen and was filed more than six years after his December 2002 final order of removal. See id.; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA reasonably concluded that Lin failed to establish changed country conditions such that the time and number limits on his motion to reopen should be excused. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). We find no abuse of discretion in its determination that Lin failed to point to evidence in the record establishing that the Chinese government’s current treatment of pro-democracy activists differed from their treatment at the time of his merits hearing. See In re S-Y-G, 24 I. & N. Dec 247, 253 (B.I.A.2007) . Moreover, there was no abuse of discretion in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions
B. holding that change in country conditions is measured from time of proceedings before ij
C. holding that bia did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider an unauthenticated document submitted with a motion to reopen to show changed country conditions
D. holding that in determining whether evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material change in country conditions that would justify reopening we compare the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below
E. holding that in evaluating evidence of changed country conditions the bia compares the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.