With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Rigoberto Chavez-Gallegos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming without opinion the decision of an immigration judge denying his motion to reopen proceedings in which he was ordered deported in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Lin v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 979, 981 (9th Cir.2007), and we review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Id. We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. The agency erred in concluding that Chavez was precluded from filing a motion to reopen on the ground that he departed the United States after he was ordered deported. See id. at 982 (<HOLDING>). The agency also abused its discretion in

A: holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings
B: holding that the mandatory detention statute i na  236c does not apply to aliens who have been taken into immigration custody several months or years after they have been released from state custody
C: holding that 8 cfr  100323b1 does not preclude motions to reopen filed by aliens who have been deported after the completion of immigration proceedings
D: holding that aliens must be permitted to unilaterally withdraw voluntary departure requests in order to pursue motions to reopen
C.