With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Mexico, petition pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely, where petitioners filed their motion to reopen nearly one year after issuance of the final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(C)(i), and failed to demonstrate changed conditions in Mexico material to their claim to asylum such as would warrant an exception to the filing deadline, see Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986 (<HOLDING>). Petitioners have waived any challenge to the

A: holding physical conditions justify tolling when those conditions impair cognitive function or the ability to communicate
B: holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment
C: holding new trial cannot be based on claim of prejudice arising from jurys reliance on evidence admitted without objection
D: holding that a petitioner cannot reopen based on changed country conditions by relying on evidence that simply recounts generalized country conditions without demonstrating that his or her predicament is appreciably different from the dangers faced by fellow citizens
D.