With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have partial jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ordonez-Velasquez’s motion to reopen as untimely because he did not file it within ninety days of the BIA’s final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1021-22 (9th Cir.2004). The BIA also acted within its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because Ordonez-Velasquez’s failure to depart during his voluntary departure period rendered him ineligible to adjust his status. See de Martinez, 374 F.3d at 764 (<HOLDING>). We reject Ordonez-Velasquez’s contention that

A: holding that the bia did not err in putting the burden of proof to demonstrate grounds for granting a motion to reopen on the alien
B: holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen
C: holding that bia did not err in denying motion to reopen that was filed after expiration of aliens voluntary departure period because alien had failed to depart
D: holding that the bia does not err by denying a motion to reopen without an opposition from the government
C.