307 (2d Cir.2003). As a preliminary matter, we reject the government’s contention that Hu failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Hu’s brief to the BIA argued that Hu’s testimony was consistent with the State Department country reports in the record because Hu’s testimony was generally consistent. Hu’s argument that her testimony was generally consistent was sufficient to indicate that Hu was challenging the IJ’s adverse credibility determination as a whole. Further, in Gill v. INS, we noted that “ § 1252(d)(1) does not limit our review to those arguments specifically raised below.” 420 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir.2005). Although Hu’s brief may not have been clear about which factual findings Hu challenged, the legal nature of her argument was clear. See id. (<HOLDING>). Reviewing the IJ’s adverse credibility
holding that argument offered in defense of decision below had been waived when not raised below holding that   1252d1 bars the consideration of bases for relief that were not raised below and of general issues that were not raised below but not of specific subsidiary legal arguments or arguments by extension that were not made below holding that petitioners had abandoned arguments not raised below recognizing general rule that an appellate court cannot address claims that were not raised below holding that arguments not raised below are waived for appeal