With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". appeal that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), and if need be thereafter, to an appropriate federal Court of Appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5); see also Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 554, 559 (6th Cir.2004) (noting that the purpose of the I.N.A.’s exhaustion requirement is to “allow the BIA to compile a record which is adequate for judicial review” (citation omitted)). This review process, not surprisingly, is exclusive. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9) and (d)(1). Thus, other courts who have confronted this issue have reached the same conclusion. See Howell v. INS, 72 F.3d 288, 293 (2d Cir.1995) (finding jurisdiction lacking where removal proceedings had begun because denials of status adjustment may be reviewed by immigration judges); cf. Pinho, 432 F.3d at 200-201 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION Thus, having failed to exhaust her

A: holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct
B: holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending
C: holding that court lacked jurisdiction to review merits of question of whether immigration officer correctly initiated expedited removal proceedings
D: holding that an aao eligibility determination is final and ripe for district court review if removal proceedings have not been initiated but noting that judicial review is barred in cases where removal proceedings have begun
D.