Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Hugo De La Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying De La Cruz’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel as untimely, because De La Cruz had knowledge of the alleged ineffective assistance for over a year before he filed his motion to reopen. See id. at 897-98 . PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. ** This
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in order to warrant equitable tolling alien claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the case during the period the alien seeks to toll internal quotation marks omitted
B. recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel
C. holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record
D. holding that a petitioner must act with due diligence when pursuing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to benefit from equitable tolling of deadlines
E. holding that this court  recognizes equitable tolling  on motions to reopen  during periods when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception fraud or error as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.