Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in light of the Matter of Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151. On the second evaluation of Petitioners’ claim, the BIA held that “the Immigration Judge followed the framework of Matter of Y-L-, supra, to determine that the respondents knowingly made frivolous asylum applications.” We agree. The IJ was not required to hold another hearing on remand, as the record was sufficiently developed to apply Matter of Y-L- to the facts of the case. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying either of Petitioners’ requests to reopen. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir.2009). Under an abuse of discretion standard, Petitioners failed to establish changed country conditions warranting reopening. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir.2008)  (citing to Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to reopen a case an alien must show that the new evidence would likely change the result
B. holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody
C. holding that an alien must show error and substantial prejudice in order to prevail on a due process claim
D. holding that the alien in that case had not established such circumstances
E. holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.