With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claim, which he purports to have raised in a second pending motion to reopen before the BIA. Indeed, the BIA may consider Zhu’s motion without this case being remanded, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), and should the BIA deny his second motion to reopen, Zhu may file a petition for review of that decision, see Durant v. INS, 393 F.3d 113, 115 (2d Cir.2004) (recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders separate from final orders of removal and that such orders require separate petitions for review). Moreover, we will not exercise any inherent authority we may possess to remand this case with instructions for the BIA to consider Zhu’s evidence of the ineffective assistance of his prior counsel. See Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 262 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). In the alternative, Zhu requests that this

A: holding that the court will not remand if i the basis for the remand is an instruction to consider documentary evidence that was not in the record before the bia and ii the agency regulations set forth procedures to reopen a case before the bia for the taking of additional evidence
B: holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by giving summary consideration to evidence presented in a motion to reopen particularly when dealing with evidence which the bia is asked to repeatedly consider
C: holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte
D: holding that where issues were not considered by the bia remand is appropriate
A.