With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". an appeal of the recommended decision and the report of the informal conference); Id. § 900.167(b) (stating that a tribe “may” file objections to the ALJ’s recommended decision). The wording of these statutes is inconsistent with the argument that the APIA failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by failing to pursue all permissive avenues for administrative review. See Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137, 147, 113 S.Ct. 2539, 125 L.Ed.2d 113 (1993) (“[APA section 704] explicitly requires exhaustion of all intra-agency appeals mandated either by statute or by agency rule; it would be inconsistent with the plain language of [section 704] for courts to require litigants to exhaust optional appeals as well”); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 757, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the Court notes that Defendants’

A: holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional
B: recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different
C: holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional
D: holding that a statute mandates exhaustion only when it contains sweeping and direct statutory language indicating that there is no federal jurisdiction prior to exhaustion
D.