citizenship claim because he failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies; specifically, he failed to appeal the decision of the District Director to the Administrative Appeals Unit. In the alternative, the government argues that Minasyan is not a derivative citizen by virtue of his mother’s naturalization because he has not established that his parents were legally separated before his eighteenth birthday. We reject both of these arguments and conclude that Mina-syan meets the requirements of citizenship as set forth in former § 321(a). 1. Exhaustion For a court to review a final order of removal an alien must typically exhaust all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). However, a claim to citizenship need not be
holding that   1252d1 bars the consideration of bases for relief that were not raised below and of general issues that were not raised below but not of specific subsidiary legal arguments or arguments by extension that were not made below holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below recognizing appellate court jurisdiction over questions of law when objections were not presented below holding that an issue not properly preserved below in the district court is generally waived holding that  1252 generally bars us for lack of sub jectmatter jurisdiction from reaching the merits of a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below