With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105 and 3.344, we lack jurisdiction over those claims. A review of the record reveals that Mlekoday raised a series of allegations of CUE in the December 1977 RO decision. On appeal to the Veterans Court, however, Mlekoday raised several new contentions for the first time, including his allegation that the Board failed to correctly apply the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.344. As such, the Veterans Court did not err when it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over that claim of CUE. The Veterans Court’s jurisdiction is limited by statute and is to be construed narrowly. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252 and 7261. And, the Veterans Court does not have jurisdiction over a new CUE claim that was not first considered by the Board. See Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the Veterans Court’s

A: holding that a nonfrivolous allegation of board jurisdiction is one which if true would establish a prima facie case that the board has jurisdiction over the matter at issue
B: holding that a board decision is required to vest the court of veterans appeals with jurisdiction over a claimants appeal
C: holding that cue existed in ro decision that had reduced veterans benefits where court found that it is evident that cue existed therein
D: holding that each allegation of cue is separate and must be specifically considered by the board before the veterans court has jurisdiction
D.