With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the record neither compels, nor supports, a reversal of the IJ and BIA’s decisions. Thus, we deny the petitioners’ petition for review. PETITION DENIED. 1 . Repizo also argues that the lack of corroborative evidence to support his allegations of persecution was due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and indicates that he recendy filed a motion to reopen removal proceedings with the BIA on said grounds. Since the BIA has yet to make a determination with regard to his motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction to review Repizo's ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he has not yet exhausted his administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir.2006)

A: holding that appellate jurisdiction over final orders of removal are limited to claims that have been exhausted before the bia
B: holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims that have not been raised before the bia
C: holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders
D: holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia
A.