With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the whole record before they may justify an adverse credibility determination.” Id. at 308. Further complicating our review is the IJ’s apparent reliance on a serious error of fact. See Zhou Yun Zhang, 386 F.3d at 74 (noting that reviewing court must ensure that credibility findings are not based upon “a misstatement of the facts in the record”). The IJ found that, because the Democratic Party won the election, “it [was] difficult to understand why [the Socialist Party members] would threaten him to try to cover up alleged voting fraud.... ” Although we cannot consider petitioner’s proffered evidence that the results for the 2000 elections were not available until October 8, 2000, because it was not presented to the BIA, see Correa v. Thornburgh, 901 F.2d 1166, 1171 (2d Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>), we recognize that nothing in the record

A: holding that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his claim involving a procedural error correctable by the bia
B: holding that the petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by first presenting ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the bia
C: holding that claims not presented to the ij and bia should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
D: holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim
C.