With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Chunhua Huang filed a habeas petition in district court, which was transferred to this court as a petition for review, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and abuse of discretion in various immigration proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and deny the petition for review. Because the effective date of Huang’s petition is January 21, 2004, we only have jurisdiction to consider her challenge to the BIA’s order dated December 23, 2003. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (stating that an alien must file a petition for review “not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal”); Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). The BIA did not abuse its

A: holding that the 30day notice of appeal requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional
B: holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional
C: recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional
D: holding that this time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional
D.