Detailed Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Q: 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
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that bia may deny motion to reopen where movant has not established prima facie eligibility for relief sought (B) 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 (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 (E) holding that the bia may deny a motion to reopen based on its finding that the movant has not established his prima facie eligibility for relief
A:
recognizing that bia may deny motion to reopen where movant has not established prima facie eligibility for relief sought