With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". As a result, we have considered issues that were addressed by the Commission after being presented by someone other than the petitioner. E.g., Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 779 F.2d 702, 707 (D.C.Cir. 1985) (considering issue raised before the Commission by another party); Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 465 F.2d 519, 523-24 (D.C.Cir. 1972) (considering issue raised by dissenting commissioners). But petitioner cites no case in which we held that the mere fact that the Commission addressed an issue was sufficient to preserve the issue for judicial review. Indeed, we have rejected such arguments in analogous contexts. Cf. Local 900 Int’l Union of Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers v. NLRB, 727 F.2d 1184, 1191 (D.C.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Parsippany Hotel, 99 F.3d at 418 (holding

A: holding that issue raised before alj but not nlrb was not preserved
B: holding that discussion of an issue by the nlrb did not necessarily prove compliance with  10e of the nlra requiring that issues be raised before the board in order to obtain judicial review of such
C: holding that despite the merits of the argument the appellant raised on appeal the issue was not preserved for judicial review because it was not raised before the administrative agency
D: holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court
B.