With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review. Aguilar-Treminio’s application for cancellation of removal was properly deemed abandoned because she did not file the application by the deadline set by the IJ. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (“If an application or document is not filed within the time set by the immigration judge, the opportunity to file that application or document shall be deemed waived.”) Aguilar-Treminio’s contention that the IJ violated due process by failing to directly question her regarding why her application was not timely filed, by cutting off her testimony after the IJ had rendered her decision, and by not advising her that she may be eligible for voluntary departure pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.46(b)(1)(B), is unavailing. Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, AguilarTreminio failed to

A: recognizing that due process claims require showing that proceedings were so fundamentally unfair that she was prevented from reasonably presenting her case
B: holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired
C: holding that a plaintiff could not proceed on her procedural due process claim brought under  1983 because she did not show that she had exhausted her state law remedies or alleged that those remedies were inadequate
D: holding appellant produced no evidence that when she made her complaints to management she ever mentioned that she felt she was being treated unfairly due to her race or sex
A.