With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on September 18, 2009. We rejected Liu’s petition for review as untimely in a December 22, 2008 order. The BIA denied Liu’s motion to reconsider in its November 4th Order, finding that Liu offered no new or previously unavailable evidence, and that Liu had failed to demonstrate an error of fact or law in the BIA’s August 20th Order. Liu petitions us for review of that denial. II. ANALYSIS In his petition, Liu asks us to review the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen as well as its denial of his motion to reconsider. The Government contends that Liu improperly seeks collateral review of the BIA’s August 20th Order. We agree that a party may not collaterally attack a BIA ruling in a petition for review of a motion to reconsider. See Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). We also agree that Liu wrongly asks us to

A: holding that we lack jurisdiction based on a failure to exhaust where an alien in expedited removal proceedings failed to challenge the dhss determination that he committed an aggravated felony after receiving notice of the dhss intent to issue a final removal order on that basis
B: recognizing collateral attack on void order
C: holding that dhss motion to reconsider was a collateral attack on a bia order
D: holding the finality of a bia order is not affected by a subsequent motion to reconsider
C.