With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Mauro Cantoran Quiroz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the BIA’s summary affirmance of the immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings so that he can apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Cantoran Quiroz contends that the IJ erred in concluding that he failed to establish a prima facie case of eligibility for relief under CAT. The generalized evidence attached to his motion did not meet this standard. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th

A: holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioners argument that the evidence in the record clearly establishes that he is more likely than not to face torture if removed citation quotation marks and brackets omitted
B: holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review whether alien established that he will more likely than not be tortured if  removed
C: holding that to qualify for protection under the convention against torture an alien must show that he will more likely than not be tortured in his home country if removed
D: holding that cat applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country
D.