describes this result as treading "boldly.” Dissent at 1050. But remanding all other issues to the BIA is exactly what the government has urged us to do at this point. It is the dissent which proposes to consider grounds not relied upon by the BIA or argued by the government in order to deny the petition. TALLMAN, Circuit Judge, with whom Judges KOZINSKI, RYMER, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN join, dissenting in part and concurring in part: I I respectfully dissent. The Petitioners failed to adequately raise the Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) issue in their appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). It remains administratively unexhausted and I would dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). By neglecting to raise the FGM issue in their
holding that the fjailure to raise an issue in an appeal to the bia constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter alteration in original quoting vargas v united states dept of imm  nat 831 f2d 906 90708 9th cir1987 holding that fjailure to make timely and proper objection  constitutes a waiver of the right to raise the question thereafter either in the trial court or in the appellate court holding that failure to take available appeal to board of immigration appeals constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction to review holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue holding that the petitioners failure to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim before the bia deprived the district court of jurisdiction to hear the issue