SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Mohamed Irfan Shahul Ha-meed, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of a May 20, 2011, order of the BIA, affirming an April 13, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte Laforest, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mohamed Irfan Shahul Hameed, No. A093 396 959 (B.I.A. May 20, 2011), aff'g No. A093 396 959 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 13, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions, including the portions of the IJ’s decision not explicitly discussed by the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

In addition to the statutory requirement that petitioners exhaust “all administrative remedies,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), we also require petitioners to raise specific issues with the BIA that are later raised in this Court, see Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2004). This issue exhaustion requirement is “mandatory” and where, as here, “the government points out ... that an issue ... was not properly raised below, [we] must decline to consider that issue,” absent an extraordinary situation. Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 n. 1 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Marrero Pichardo v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 46, 52-53 (2d Cir. 2004)).

As the government argues, Shahul Ha-meed failed to exhaust his challenges to *156 the inconsistencies that formed the basis of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination before the BIA. Indeed, the BIA explicitly noted Shahul Hameed’s failure to do so, and he does not challenge that finding here. While we may consider issues addressed by the BIA that were not raised by an applicant in the course of an appeal, see Waldron v. INS, 17 F.3d 511, 515 n. 7 (2d Cir. 1993), we decline to do so here, as excusing Shahul Hameed’s failure to exhaust would not serve the purposes of issue exhaustion, see Theodoropoulos v. INS, 358 F.3d 162, 171 (2d Cir. 2004) (“[A]t least one of the purposes served by the exhaustion requirement contained in § 1252(d) is to ensure that the INS, as the agency responsible for construing and applying the immigration laws and implementing regulations, has had a full opportunity to consider a petitioner’s claims before they are submitted for review by a federal court.”).

Given that Shahul Hameed’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims shared the same factual predicate, he has not shown that the agency erred in finding him ineligible for relief due to his lack of credibility. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.