With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ahmed, Javairia Ahmed, Romana Ahmed, No. A096 442 859/858/857 (B.I.A. Feb. 26, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the BIA’s decision issued following remand. See Belortaja v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 619, 622-23 (2d Cir.2007). As an initial matter, we decline to review the Ahmeds’ challenge to the agency’s finding that they did not demonstrate the requisite good moral character to establish their eligibility for cancellation of removal, as the issue was ripe for review at the time of their initial petition for review before a previous panel of this Court, and that panel determined that they had waived the issue. See Johnson v. Holder, 564 F.3d 95, 99-100 (2d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the only issue before us is the

A: holding that where an issue was ripe for review at the time of an initial appeal but was nonetheless foregone it is considered waived and the law of the case doctrine bars  an appellate court in a subsequent appeal from reopening such issues in the absence of cogent or compelling reasons
B: holding an issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal
C: holding that under the law of the case doctrine an issue of fact or law decided on appeal may not be reexamined by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal
D: holding that an issue not raised on direct appeal of sentence is barred by the law of the case from presentation in a subsequent appeal
A.