With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 717 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 30, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009). As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s preter-mission of Jin’s asylum application as untimely because Jin challenges only the IJ’s factual findings regarding when he arrived in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 326-29 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we dismiss Jin’s petition for review

A: holding that appellate review of hearsay issues is de novo with no presumption of correctness
B: holding that a question of law is not implicated when the petition for review essentially disputes the correctness of the ijs factfinding
C: holding that a petition raises a question of law when it alleges a factfinding which is flawed by an error of law or an abuse of discretion that is based on a legally erroneous standard
D: holding that an appeal denying a petition for what was essentially a petition for a new trial to reopen the criminal process was not separately appealable
B.