in determining that Kaur failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). We lack jurisdiction to consider Kaur’s contention that the immigration judge did not advise Kaur of the relief available to her because she failed to raise that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED
holding that this time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that issue exhaustion is mandatory even if not a statutory jurisdictional requirement holding that the ftcas exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional