or even unlawful or unconstitutional.” Id. With regard to Arshad’s alleged detentions and mistreatment by Pakistani authorities, the BIA agreed with the IJ that Arshad fa es that Arshad was an excellent employee who resigned of his own accord; Arshad presented no evidence, other than his unsupported assumptions, that Pakistani officials forced his employer to terminate him. Arshad also argues that his encounter with Shabaz Sharif at JFK Airport, in which Sharif advised him not to return to Pakistan, undermines the agency’s determination that he failed to demonstrate a likelihood of future persecution or torture. However, we lack jurisdiction to entertain that claim because he failed to exhaust the issue before the BIA. See Lin v. Att’y Gen., 543 F.3d 114, 120 & n. 6 (3d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). A petitioner may exhaust an issue by raising
holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional holding that the ftcas exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional recognizing that issue exhaustion is a mandatory although not jurisdictional requirement