With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (3d Cir.2005). Accordingly, the IJ certified the case back to the BIA. See A.R. 29. On receipt of the IJ’s certification, a three-member panel of the BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusions and indicated that it had erred in initially granting reopening. A.R. 15-16. It therefore vacated its initial order and de nied reopening. Ogunwomoju timely petitioned us for review. II. We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Ogunwomoju’s motion to reopen. See, e.g., Ezeagwuna v. Ashcroft, 325 F.3d 396, 405, 410 (3d Cir.2003). Our review does not extend, however, either to (i) the IJ’s original denial of the requests for asylum, withholding, and relief under CAT or (ii) the Board’s summary affirmance of that denial. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Nocon v. INS, 789 F.2d 1028, 1033-34 (3d

A: holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct
B: holding that removal proceedings are in the nature of process and defects in the removal procedures are waivable
C: holding that when an ij issues a decision granting an aliens application for withholding of removal without a grant of asylum the decision must include an explicit order of removal designating a country of removal
D: holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of a petition challenging a removal order or to stay a removal order where the petitioner was not specifically challenging his physical detention
A.