interpretation of the regulation as requiring both that (1) the applicant be married to someone who is currently eligible for TPS, and (2) the marriage be in existence at the time of the initial registration period. Because Ville-gas-Menjivar did not marry her husband until after the initial registration ended, she was not eligible for TPS. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. PETITION DENIED. 1 . To the extent that Villegas-Menjivar also contends that the BIA’s interpretation of the regulation is inconsistent with the humanitarian purpose of TPS and the interest of family unity, we are without jurisdiction to consider those arguments because Villegas-Menjivar failed to raise them before the BIA. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir.2006)
holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia recognizing that we lack jurisdiction to consider issues not raised in the parties briefs holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims raised in a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies holding that the prisoner has the burden of demonstrating he has exhausted his administrative remedies in his complaint holding that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a claim in court