With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 20th Order with two motions: a petition for review, filed with this Court on September 29, 2008, and a motion to reconsider, filed with the B w the BIA’s August 20th Order denying his motion to reopen. We previously held that Liu’s motion to reopen the August 20th Order was untimely. Despite this ruling, Liu focuses his arguments on alleged errors in the BIA’s August 20th Order, arguing that the BIA improperly rejected Liu’s offered evidence as unauthenticated and unoriginal. Liu’s attempt to solicit our review of the August 20th Order clearly falls outside of the thirty-day statutory limitation provided by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider Liu’s arguments against the BIA’s August 20th Order. Cf. Guirguis v. INS, 993 F.2d 508, 509 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). We therefore constrain our consideration of

A: holding that the crossappeal time limit is jurisdictional
B: holding that the time limit for filing a petition for review of a final order of deportation is jurisdictional
C: holding that the statutory time limit for filing a petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable lolling
D: holding that a time limit for filing a complaint as a creditor in bankruptcy proceedings is not jurisdictional
B.