Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
issued several non-precedential opinions granting motions to reopen that were filed with the BIA before Dada but not adjudicated by the BIA until after Dada that provide apt comparison to Patel’s situation. In these cases, the BIA has construed the motion to reopen as an “implicit” request for withdrawal of voluntary departure because the alien was unaware of his/her right to request withdrawal at the time of filing the motion to reopen and because the motion coupled with the alien’s “decision to remain in the United States, clearly reflect that [the alien] was more interested in pursuing the underlying application for relief than in pursuing voluntary departure.” In re Surujpaul Persaud, 2009 WL 3335993 (BIA Oct. 7, 2009); see also In re Mahmood, 2009 WL 5252795 (BIA Dec. 10, 2009) ; In re Rodenau, 2009 WL 2171614 (BIA July 9,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the bia did not err in denying aliens motion to stay voluntary departure period pending determination on the motion to reopen
B. holding bia did not err in determining request for stay of voluntary departure is not an implicit request for a withdrawal of voluntary departure
C. holding that the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on the merits of the underlying application for adjustment of status was a discretionary decision under the adjustment of status statute and this court therefore did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the bias ruling
D. holding motion to reopen seeking adjustment of status constituted a withdrawal of the request for voluntary departure and the adjustment motion was therefore not barred based on failure to depart within the voluntary departure time allowed
E. holding that bia did not err in denying motion to reopen that was filed after expiration of aliens voluntary departure period because alien had failed to depart
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.