With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) deportation order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion whether the BIA has failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We reject Lopez Reyes’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to articulate its reasoning where the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s oral decision pursuant to Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), in addition to providing its own reasons for dismissing his appeal. See Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). We lack jurisdiction to review Lopez Reyes’s

A: holding that this courts review is limited to the bia decision and the portions of the ijs decision that it expressly adopted
B: holding that we will not review portions of an ijs ruling that are not adopted by the bia
C: holding that the bia adopts the ijs entire decision when it cites burbano and expresses no disagreement with the ijs decision
D: holding the bias decision upholding the ijs finding of removability  was the final order
C.