Second, it contends that p rk of the courts, preserves the integrity and autonomy of the administrative process, and ensures that when the administrative proceeding does come before the court, the court will have before it that mature, considered, and final articulation of the basis of the agency’s action.” Glisson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 55 F.3d 1325, 1327 (7th Cir.1995) (citing McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.E.2d 291 (1992)). In order to exhaust a claim, the claim “must be raised with sufficient clarity to allow the decision-maker to understand and rule on the issue raised.” Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc., 305 F.3d at 965 (citing Native Ecosystems Council, 304 F.3d at 900); see also Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Serv., 183 F.3d 196, 202 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Under the APA, claimants may use “general
holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal holding that to exhaust a claim the claims raised at the administrative appeal must be so similar that the district court can ascertain that the agency was on notice of and had an opportunity to consider and decide the same claims now raised in federal court holding that claims including constitutional claims must be asserted in trial court to be raised on appeal holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal