With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ke Zken Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir.2001). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Liu’s motion to reopen. The BIA reasonably found that Liu “offered no explanation [pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2] that would lead [the BIA] to conclude that the additional evidence presented with his motion was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the hearing below,” and Liu failed to state any grounds that would warrant a reopening sua sponte. In his motion Liu did not mention the relevance of the evidence he submitted with the motion, or explain why that evidence was previously unavailable and could not have been discovered or presented at his merits hearing. See Jian Yun Zheng v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 409 F.3d 43, 48 (2d Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to

A: holding that the bia abused its discretion in issuing an incomplete and nonsensical opinion that failed to consider the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner
B: holding that any inherent power to remand to the bia for the consideration of additional evidence should not be exercised where i the basis for the remand is an instruction to consider documentary evidence that was not in the record before the bia and ii the agency regulations set forth procedures to reopen a case before the bia for the taking of additional evidence
C: holding that because petitioner made no effort to demonstrate that the affidavits and additional documentary evidence she submitted in support of her motion to reopen met the requirements under 8 cfr  10032c1 the bia was not obligated to consider them
D: holding that the court will not remand if i the basis for the remand is an instruction to consider documentary evidence that was not in the record before the bia and ii the agency regulations set forth procedures to reopen a case before the bia for the taking of additional evidence
C.