With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Javairia Ahmed, and Romana Ahmed, natives and citizens of Pakistan, seek review of the February 26, 2010, order of the BIA denying cancellation of removal and Petitioners’ motion to remand in order to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. In re Syed Iqb meds’ challenge to the BIA’s denial of their motion to remand, which we review for abuse of discretion. Li Yong Cao v. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 151, 156 (2d Cir.2005). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the Ahmeds’ motion based on their failure to provide sufficient evidence establishing their prima facie eligibility for relief. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir.2008); INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (<HOLDING>). While the Ahmeds argued that they feared harm

A: holding that the bia may deny a motion to reopen based on its finding that the movant has not established his prima facie eligibility for relief
B: holding that a movants failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief is a proper ground for the bia to deny a motion to reopen
C: holding that the bia may deny a motion to reopen on the ground that the movant has not established prima facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought
D: recognizing that failure to offer evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought is a proper ground for denying a motion to reopen
B.