Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen proceedings in which he was removed in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (2005), and we deny the petition for review in part and dismiss it in part. The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Lopez’s motion to reopen because the record indicates that Lopez’s hearing notice was mailed to his address of record and he did not provide a sworn affidavit containing information to rebut the presumption of delivery created by regular mail. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1); Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2002) . Lopez’s contention that the BIA erred by
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing presumption of effective service by regular mail
B. holding that the bia had imposed a new standardof proof by requiring the alien to provide substantial evidence to overcome a presumption of effective mail delivery
C. holding that notice to an alien at the most recent address provided by the alien is legally sufficient
D. holding that a sworn affidavit that neither the alien nor another responsible party residing at his address received the notice will generally rebut the presumption of delivery created by regular mail
E. holding that the admission in evidence of a certifying document from the secretary of state that its history records indicated that notice of suspension was sent by regular mail to the defendant did not violate the confrontation clause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.