With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA was not required to close Meza-Regalado’s removal proceedings to allow him to pursue a Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (“LIFE Act”) application with the Department of Homeland Security because he did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief under the LIFE Act. See 8 C.F.R. § 245a.l2(b). We lack jurisdiction to review Meza-Regalado’s other contentions because he did not raise them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED

A: holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review legal arguments not raised before the bia
B: holding that review of questions not raised to the bia is barred
C: holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia
D: holding that arguments not raised before the trial court are waived
A.