With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". abuse its discretion in denying Nganso’s motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We agree with the Board’s determination that Nganso failed to present clear and convincing evidence indicating a strong likelihood that her marriage is bona fide as required by Matter of Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253 (B.I.A.2002). Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITIONS DENIED 1 . We have also considered Nganso’s challenge to the immigration judge’s refusal to allow her witness to testify and discern no prejudice from the immigration judge’s decision. See Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320-21 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Nganso does not challenge the denial of

A: holding petitioner must demonstrate error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim
B: holding petitioner must show prejudice to prevail on due process claim
C: holding that a petitioner must show prejudice in order to prevail on a claim that he or she was denied a full and fair hearing in violation of due process
D: holding that to establish a violation of due process an alien must show that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her claims internal quotation marks omitted
C.