but indeed compels it”) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s affirmation of the immigration judge’s decision; the record evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. Lin also argues the immigration judge erred in failing to find a nexus between his Falun Gong activities and the confiscation of his gaming equipment, and in failing to properly review the State Department Human Rights Report on China. However, these claims have not been administratively exhausted because Lin did not present them in his brief for his BIA appeal. This Court does not have jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been administratively exhausted. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 554, 559-60 (6th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). To the extent Lin also argues this Court
holding only claims properly presented to the bia and considered on their merits can be reviewed by this court in an immigration appeal holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered by this court