With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ma, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo due process claims. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Ma’s motion to reopen due to the lack of prejudice from her former attorney’s failure to file an application for cancellation of removal, where Ma has not established plausible grounds for success on the merits of such an application. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also Singh, 367 F.3d at 1190 (stating

A: holding that a plaintiffs complaint need only establish a plausible entitlement to relief
B: holding that the absence of plausible grounds for relief rebuts the presumption of prejudice
C: holding that child support formula creates a rebuttable presumption and an inequitable result rebuts the presumption
D: holding rico claim could have been raised in state court because of presumption of concurrent jurisdiction but not addressing whether statutes language and legislative history rebuts the presumption
B.