With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the money they paid a non-attorney representative who misled them into believing that the “waiver” she promised to get them would preserve their right to appeal their case to the BIA. The BIA abused its discretion when it determined that the declaration was “vague” and faded to prove that petitioners had an agreement with the non-attorney representative against whom they have filed an ineffective assistance claim. See Lopez v. INS, 184 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.1999) (listing Lozada requirements necessary to establish ineffective assistance). Not only did petitioners properly comply with Matter of Lozada, 19 I & N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), they also acted with due diligence upon discovering that their appeal had not been filed. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we conclude that petitioners have

A: holding that equitable estoppel requires proof of fraud misrepresentation or affirmative deception
B: holding that the act provides the exclusive procedures and remedies for common law causes of action based on allegations of deception fraud and misrepresentation
C: holding that aedpas time limitation may be equitably tolled where extraordinary circumstances prevent petitioner from filing a timely petition and where petitioner acts with reasonable diligence
D: recognizing equitable tolling of deadlines and numerical limits on motions to reopen or reconsider during periods when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception fraud or error as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception fraud or error
D.