We disagree. We do not review the decisions of the IJ unless the BIA expressly adopts them. Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir.2001) (“[Ajbsent special circumstances not present here, we review only decisions by the BIA and not those by immigration judges.”). Instead, we review the final order of the BIA. INA § 242(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Here, the final order of the BIA considered whether the second motion to reopen was properly dismissed. We see no reason why, in our review of the BIA’s final order, we may not consider its holding that the second motion to reopen was properly dismissed. And, because the BIA has ruled on the IJ’s dismissal of the first motion to reopen, Eremenko has exhausted his administrative remedies. Alleyne v. INS, 879 F.2d 1177, 1182-84 (3d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). We consider next whether the BIA abused its
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 the court lacks jurisdiction to review legal arguments not raised before the bia holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims that have not been raised before the bia holding that review of questions not raised to the bia is barred holding that the bia rule is reasonable