With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". circumstances” excusing his late filing of an asylum application. The BIA also affirmed the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility determination. Because the BIA generally adopted the IJ’s conclusions and added its own comments, we review both decisions. Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir.2005). For the reasons stated below, we grant the petition and remand for further proceedings on an open record. 1. As the government now concedes, we have jurisdiction over the BIA’s “extraordinary circumstances” determination on undisputed underlying facts. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177-81 (9th Cir.2008). Petitioner argued that he established “extraordinary circumstances,” because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5)(iii) (<HOLDING>); see also Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 588 F.3d

A: holding that to the extent defendants claim is one of ineffective assistance of counsel it is not cognizable on direct appeal and rule 2915 is the exclusive procedure by which a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be advanced
B: recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel
C: recognizing ineffective assistance of counsel as one extraordinary circumstance and setting forth the requirements
D: recognizing that strickland applies to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims
C.