With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir.2005). Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the IJ’s interpretation of the hardship standard falls within the broad range authorized by the statute. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1004-06 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioners’ due process challenge to the BIA’s decision is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). We do not consider whether petitioners

A: holding that we will not review portions of an ijs ruling that are not adopted by the bia
B: holding that this courts review is limited to the bia decision and the portions of the ijs decision that it expressly adopted
C: holding that the bia adopts the ijs entire decision when it cites burbano and expresses no disagreement with the ijs decision
D: holding no due process violation where the bia affirms the ijs decision without issuing a separate opinion
D.