With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Daniel Espinoza Villanueva and Candelaria Hernandez Villanueva, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s denial of their applications for cancellation of removal and its order denying their motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s August 6, 2002 order dismissing the Villanuevas’ appeal because they failed to file their petition for review within 30 days of the issuance of that order. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). We review the denial of a motion to

A: holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider when the motion merely repeats arguments that the bia has previously rejected
B: holding the finality of a bia order is not affected by a subsequent motion to reconsider
C: 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
D: holding that dhss motion to reconsider was a collateral attack on a bia order
B.