Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
was clearly untimely. The BIA also properly held that Zhang’s conversion to Christianity was a change in his personal circumstances, not a change in country conditions that would support reopening. Liu v. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 145, 150-51 (3d Cir.2009). We have recognized, however, that an alien who has been ordered removed can file an untimely or successive asylum application based on changed personal conditions if the alien can also show changed country conditions in the motion to reopen. Id. at 150. Thus, Zhang would be eligible to file a second asylum application in reopened proceedings based on his Christian faith, if he is able to establish relevant changed country conditions since the time of his initial asylum proceedings. Filja v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 241, 251, 252 (3d Cir.2006) . Zhang argued before the BIA that there has
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that change in country conditions is measured from time of proceedings before ij
B. 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
C. holding that a change in personal circumstances in the united states does not constitute a change in country conditions and therefore does not establish an exception to the filing deadline for motions to reopen
D. holding that risk must be measured at the time the lawsuit is filed
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.