With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny in part and grant in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than four years after the BIA’s February 24, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order), and petitioners failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir.2003). Petitioners’ contention that an immigration consultant they knew was not a lawyer provided them with ineffective assistance of counsel is foreclosed. See Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Because the BIA failed to address

A: recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel
B: holding that knowing reliance upon the advice of a nonattorney cannot support a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in a removal proceeding
C: holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate
D: recognizing claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel usually must be raised in collateral proceeding
B.