Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the time for filing them petition did not begin to run until their attorney received the BIA’s decision on September 15, 2008, and that since their petition was filed less than 30 days later, it was timely filed under section 1252(b)(1). Even if the time for filing a petition for review begins to run only when the BIA mails its decision to the petitioner’s, or petitioner’s counsel’s, address of record, Radkov v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 96, 99 (1st Cir.2004) (dicta); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258-59 (9th Cir.1996) (collecting cases), but see Nowak v. INS, 94 F.3d 390, 392 (7th Cir.1996) (rejecting that proposition), that does not help petitioners here, who concede that the BIA mailed the decision to the correct address. See Nowak, 94 F.3d at 392; cf. Radkov, 375 F.3d at 99 . Respondent suggests that petitioners may ask
```
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 did not err in putting the burden of proof to demonstrate grounds for granting a motion to reopen on the alien
C. holding that even if  the mailing  somehow went awry without any fault on the part of the bia that circumstance alone would not excuse the failure to file a timeous motion to reopen
D. holding that the bia does not err by denying a motion to reopen without an opposition from the government
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.