”) (quoting Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1191 (Fed.Cir.1990)). Interpreting the “use of certain information” provision to refer to all the information submitted by an interested party is a reasonable construction of the statute. Moreover, if the Department were forced to use the partial information submitted by respondents, interested parties would be able to manipulate the process by submitting only beneficial information. Respondents, not the Department, would have the ultimate control to determine what information would be used for the margin calculation. This is in direct contradiction to the policy behind the use of facts available. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 13 CIT 218, 225, 710 F.Supp. 341, 347 (1989), aff'd, Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d 1185 (<HOLDING>). As a result, the Department’s interpretation
holding that review of questions not raised to the bia is barred holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte holding that there is no right to habeas review of administrative evidentiary determinations before a district court where direct review of the administrative proceedings is available in the appellate courts holding that the bia rule the forerunner to facts available is designed to prevent a respondent from controlling the results of an administrative review by providing partial information holding that the bia rule is reasonable