Consequently, we need not address the second issue raised by Gavoci, namely, whether the government has rebutted the presumption of future persecution by a showing of changed country conditions. In light of the foregoing, we deny Gavo-ci’s petition for review in part and dismiss in part. PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART. 1 . Angje is a derivative beneficiary of Rrok Gavoci’s asylum application. 2 . Gavoci testified that he was beaten and injured during one such demonstration in 1991, although he could not say by whom. We will not consider this incident in analyzing his claims because he did not refer to it in his appeal before the BIA and only fleetingly mentions it in his brief to this Court. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250-51 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226,
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 this court lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of the bia refusing to reopen immigration proceedings sua sponte holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia