With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a Fifth Amendment due process claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The BIA denied the motion to reopen. Petitioners petition for review. We have jurisdiction to review the petitioners’ due process challenge. See REAL ID Act of 2005, 8 U.S.C. § 1252; Sotelo v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 968, 970 (9th Cir.2005). In order to grant the relief requested by the petitioners’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel we must find both deficient performance by the petitioners’ counsel and prejudice. Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003). Even if we were to hold that counsel provided deficient performance, see Escobar-Grijalva v. INS, 206 F.3d 1331, 1335 (9th Cir.2000), we deny the petition because petitioners are unable to show prejudice. See Rojas-Garcia, 339 F.3d at 827 (<HOLDING>). The evidence presented in petitioners’ motion

A: holding that where the minimal requirements of due process have been met an inmate must show prejudice when a particular regulation is not complied with before a federal court will intervene
B: holding that to show prejudice in a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors the result of the proceeding would have been different
C: holding that to show prejudice petitioners must show that the bia could plausibly have determined that they met the eligibility requirements of suspension of deportation
D: holding that a deportation proceeding commenced after an order to show cause issued
C.