Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or other supporting evidence with the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The BIA finding that he had not satisfied any. However, even construing broadly Liu’s pro se brief, see Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.2006), we cannot find that Liu has challenged the BIA’s findings before this Court. Accordingly, we deem any argument based on ineffective assistance of counsel waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). Furthermore, because each of these findings is an independent ground upon which the BIA may deny a motion to reopen, the waiver of arguments challeng ing these findings is dispositive of Liu’s petition for review. See Jian Yun Zheng v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 409 F.3d 43, 46 (2d Cir.2005) ; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (requiring
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that while slavish adherence to matter of lozada is not required when an alien does not comply with those requirements in any respect the ineffective assistance of counsel claim is forfeited
B. holding that failing to substantially comply with the matter of lozada requirements in a motion to reopen before the bia forfeits an ineffective assistance claim in this court
C. holding that the petitioner was not entitled to claim ineffective assistance because she did not comply with the lozada requirements and made no effort to explain her lack of compliance
D. holding that the petitioners failure to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim before the bia deprived the district court of jurisdiction to hear the issue
E. holding that the petitioners failure to comply with the lozada requirements results in a forfei ture of his ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.