1535, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005). Exhaustion occurs when the petitioner has fairly presented his claim to the state courts by arguing both the federal legal principles and the salient and operative facts of the claim, thereby giving the state courts a “meaningful opportunity to pass upon the substance of the claims later presented in federal court.” Chambers v. McCaughtry, 264 F.3d 732, 737-38 (7th Cir.2001) (collecting cases) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Exhausting all state remedies includes presenting each claim on appeal to the Illinois appellate court and in a petition to the Illinois Supreme Court for discretionary review. See, e.g., O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999); Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Exhaustion is not required, however, when the
holding that a petition for review is an adequate substitute for habeas corpus holding that the remedy of habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for postconviction relief under rule 3850 holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus holding that the rule applies for purposes of habeas corpus under section 2254 holding plain statement rule applicable in habeas corpus proceedings pursuant to 28 usc  2254