With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006). After the July 2006 merits hearing, the IJ found that the Petitioner had failed to establish his Congolese identity, which defeated prima facie eligibility for relief. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006) (“[A] petitioner’s nationality, or lack of nationality, is a threshold question in determining his eligibility for asylum.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). On the motion for rehearing, the BAD did not err in declining to consider Petitioner’s newly submitted identity documents. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (<HOLDING>). As the BIA found, and Mudiangomba conceded

A: recognizing that failure to offer new previously unavailable evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought is a proper ground on which the bia may deny a motion to reopen
B: recognizing that bia may deny motion to reopen where movant has not established prima facie eligibility for relief sought
C: recognizing that in an untimely motion to reopen based on changed country conditions the movant must submit previously unavailable evidence demonstrating his prima facie eligibility for relief
D: holding that the bia may deny a motion to reopen on the ground that the movant has not established prima facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought
C.