With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the petitioner files such a motion seeking to avail himself of the exception for ‘changed circumstances.’ ” Id. at 632. Clearly, the present case is inapposite as Toledo, unlike the petitioner in Panjwani, has not filed a motion to reopen at all. This Court has generally held that in order to exhaust, an alien must first raise an issue before the BIA on direct appeal or through a motion to reopen before raising the issue in the federal courts. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir.2004); Goonsuwan, 252 F.3d at 388-89. In Goonsuwan, for example, the petitioner sought habeas relief in district court after he was ord 94) (“The proper venue for proffering new evidence is ... the BIA through a motion to reopen the case.”); Yahkpua v. I.N.S., 770 F.2d 1317, 1320 (5th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). The Seventh Circuit has recently addressed a

A: holding that we consider issues not raised at administrative level waived
B: holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal
C: holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal
D: holding petitioner may not introduce on appeal issues that were not presented to or considered at the administrative level
D.