With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008). As an initial matter, we dismiss the petition for review to the extent that Gong challenges the denial of his application for asylum. We do not have jurisdiction to review the agency’s pretermission of that application as untimely because Gong has not raised any constitutional claim or question of law regarding that ruling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (providing that no court shall have jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding that an asylum application was untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B)); id. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (providing that courts of appeals retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 328-29 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). We deny the remainder of Gong’s petition. The

A: holding that a question of law is not implicated when the petition for review essentially disputes the correctness of an ijs factfinding or the wisdom of his exercise of discretion
B: holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record
C: holding that exercise of prosecutorial discretion was not subject to judicial review absent a constitutional claim or question of law
D: holding that the question of substantial noncompliance with the requirements of a permanency plan was a question of law reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness
A.