With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Celia Morales-Morales v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 418 (7th Cir.2004) is inapplicable to her case. We do not consider Maravilla-Valdez’s contention regarding the District Director’s refusal to apply the humanitarian exception to the automatic revocation of her immediate relative petition, because we already rejected this contention in a prior memorandum disposition. See Maravilla-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 90 Fed.Appx. 242 (9th Cir.2004). We lack jurisdiction to consider Maravilla-Valdez’s contention that she was never granted voluntary departure because only deportation and exclusion proceedings were available in August of 1989 and she was not placed in these proceedings, because she failed to raise this contention on appeal to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED

A: holding that issue exhaustion is mandatory even if not a statutory jurisdictional requirement
B: holding that this time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional
C: recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional
D: holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional
C.