Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
BIA’s factfinding. The very heart of Petitioners’ claim, that the BIA’s analysis regarding their fears for their daughter’s safety was not “detailed” and failed to “adequately” address the issue, is fundamentally an objection to a factual determination by the BIA and the relative evidentiary weight the agency gave to competing considerations. In fact, the BIA directly addressed Petitioners’ fears for Tashfia’s safety and found that the IJ had “properly considered the relevant factors in the aggregate,” including consideration of Petitioners’ “testimony that they believed their daughter might be kidnapped in Bangladesh, as one of the potential hardship factors.” We have repeatedly held that “[cjloaking [a factual claim] in the garb of legal error does not alter its nature.” Id. at 73 ; see also Rashad v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1, 5
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the bia to fail to consider the merits of a petitioners claim
B. holding that plaintiff stated eighth amendment claim where he alleged exposure to ets causing aggravation of chronic asthma
C. holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte
D. holding that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts in his complaint to state a claim for wrongful discharge where he alleged he was discharged due to his political affiliation and activities
E. holding petitioners claim was factual in nature where he alleged the bia had failed to accord sufficient weight to the seriousness of his sons asthma
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.