With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (relying on the doctrine falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to conclude that the agency may decline to credit documentary evidence submitted with a motion to reopen by an alien who was found not credible in the underlying proceeding) (citing Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir.2007)). As we previously upheld the agency’s adverse credibility determination, that determination constitutes the law of the case and we decline to revisit it. See Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 726 (2d Cir.2009). Finally, although Zheng provided articles describing the harassment, arrest and interrogation of members of underground churches in China, those articles did not describe a change in country conditions since Zheng’s 2005 hearing. See Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the 1998 U.S. State Department

A: holding that 8 cfr  10032c3ii applies to changed country conditions in the country of origin or deportation and not changed personal circumstances in the united states
B: holding that in determining whether evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material change in country conditions that would justify reopening we compare the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below
C: holding that in evaluating evidence of changed country conditions the bia compares the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below
D: holding that the state department country report constituted substantial evidence to support the agencys finding of changed country conditions in guatemala
C.