omitted). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lin’s motion to reopen proceedings based on his failure to abide by the time limitations for such motions. Lin filed his motion in April 2006, more than one year after the BIA’s issuance of its final decision in March 2005, and long after the ninety-day deadline for the filing of motions to reopen had passed. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although Lin argues in his brief to this Court that the arrest warrant he submitted to the BIA constituted evidence of changed country conditions, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this issue in light of the Government’s argument that he failed to administratively exhaust it before the BIA. Cf. Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 461 F.3d 101 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). It is possible that the warrant provided new
holding that issue exhaustion is not jurisdictional and thus waived if not raised by the government recognizing that issue exhaustion is a mandatory although not jurisdictional requirement holding that under 8 usc  1252d1 issue exhaustion while mandatory is not a jurisdictional requirement and consequently a failure to exhaust may be waived by the government holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that issue exhaustion is mandatory even if not a statutory jurisdictional requirement