Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
his motion to reconsider. In re Jin Di Lu, No. A97 162 780 (B.I.A. Jan. 16, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. Where, as here, an alien files a timely petition for review from the denial of a motion to reconsider, but not from the underlying decision for which reconsideration is sought, we may review only the denial of the motion to reconsider. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 88, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001). To the extent that Lu challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider, we find that the BIA reasonably denied his motion where he failed to specify errors of fact or law in its prior decision as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006) . For the foregoing reasons, the petition for
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen
B. holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider where the motion merely repeats arguments that the bia has previously rejected
C. holding the finality of a bia order is not affected by a subsequent motion to reconsider
D. holding that merely reiterating arguments previously presented to the bia does not constitute specifying errors of fact or law as required for a successful motion to reconsider alteration omitted
E. holding that the timely filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider with the bia does not toll the time period for seeking appellate court review and that the mere act of filing the motion does not render nonfinal the underlying bia decision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.