Rodriguez-Vera argues that, because Revised Code of Washington § 9.41.170 includes antique firearms in its definition of firearms, his conviction under that statute does not categorically qualify as a firearm offense for purposes of being statuto rily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b)(1)(C) (referencing 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)). But Rodriguez-Vera failed to raise this argument before the BIA. Accordingly, Rodriguez-Vera failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, see Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>), and we lack jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. §
holding that a petitioner must specify which issues form the basis of the appeal holding that the direction the governments appeal must take or whether it may appeal at all is to be governed by the substantial basis of the orders sought to be reviewed rather than their designation and form holding that a petitioner must show  that the outcome of his appeal would have been different had counsel raised the issue holding petitioner may not introduce on appeal issues that were not presented to or considered at the administrative level holding that issues must be briefed to be preserved on appeal