to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the issue.”). Although his brief to the BIA was not a model of clarity, Martinez sufficiently raised the issue by pointing out that he had testified before the IJ that the guerillas persecuted him because of their interest in his cousin and his resemblance to his cousin and by stating repeatedly that he and his family suffered persecution by guerillas. Martinez gave no indication in his notice of appeal or brief to the BIA that he intended to limit in any way his claim of persecution as he had asserted it before the IJ and, instead, challenged generally the IJ's decision finding that he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. See Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 901 n. 13 (9th Cir.2000)
holding political persecution claim administratively exhausted by applicants raising of the issue before the ij and general challenge of the ijs determination in his brief to the bia holding that petitioner had exhausted his claim by explicitly mentioning in his brief to the bia that he was requesting reversal of the ijs denial of relief under the convention against torture holding that failure to include an issue in statement of issues did not bar the appellant from raising the issue in its opening brief holding that in light of an applicants omission of various relevant facts from his asylum application substantial evidence supported the ijs adverse credibility determination 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