removed, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during his deportation hearing. 252 F.3d at 385. The district court granted the petitioner relief but this Court reversed, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider his claim when he had not first presented it to the BIA. Id. at 390. In so holding, Goonsuwan acknowledged that a motion to reopen, while generally not required to exhaust administrative remedies, is required where the BIA has not had an opportunity to consider the claim but has adequate mechanisms to remedy it. Id. The overwhelming weight of the case law in this Circuit reaches the same conclusion as Goonsuwan: exhaustion requires that a petitioner present new arguments for the first time in a motion to reopen. See, e.g., Roy, 389 F.3d at 132, 137 (<HOLDING>); Faddoul v. I.N.S., 37 F.3d 185, 190 (5th
holding that claims not presented to the ij and bia should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to include issue in case brief holding that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his claim involving a procedural error correctable by the bia holding that the petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by first presenting ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the bia