marks omitted); Mansare v. Holder, 383 Fed.Appx. 522, 526 (6th Cir.2010) (BIA opinion that noted numerous discrepancies, but discussed only a few, “reflected a consideration of the record and sufficiently addressed the pertinent issues to facilitate our review”). Indeed, the BIA explicitly adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, which thoroughly catalogued those inconsistencies. C. Failure to Exhaust Ba raises two additional claims: (1) the IJ erred in failing to consider evidence of female genital mutilation as a basis for a well-founded fear of future persecution and (2) changes in country conditions necessitate a remand. Because Ba neglected to raise these arguments before the BIA, however, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 554, 560 (6th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). III. We deny Ba’s petition. 1 . Ba fails to
holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court holding that only claims properly presented to the bia and considered on their merits can be reviewed by this court holding that we cannot properly receive and consider evidence that was not presented to and considered by the trial court holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal holding state prisoners proceeding under  2241 must be granted a coa before their claims can be considered on the merits