Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
rights in denying his motion to reopen. “The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen ... is within the discretion of the Board....” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Thus, we generally review the BIA’s denial of -.a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. See Infanzon v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1359, 1362 (10th Cir.2004). The Attorney General contends that we lack jurisdiction to review most Mr. Rodriguez-Reyes’s claims, and the remaining claims are without merit. We agree. A. This Court has no Jurisdiction to Review the BIA’s Removal Order First, we have no jurisdiction to review Mr. Rodriguez-Reyes’s claims related to the BIA’s order affirming the IJ’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal, because he failed to file a timely petition for review of that order. See id. at 1361 . We therefore dismiss the petition for review
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that we will not review portions of an ijs ruling that are not adopted by the bia
B. holding the bia did not err in affirming the ijs denial of a continuance request where there was no prima facie approvable visa petition pending and alien had not applied for status adjustment
C. holding that the requirement that an alien appeal a removal order within 30 days is jurisdictional
D. holding that review of questions not raised to the bia is barred
E. holding appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review bia order affirming ijs denial of asylum because alien did not file petition for review within 30 days of bia order as required by 8 usc  1252b1
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.