Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that Bartholdi’s claims of privilege were not properly raised before the Commission. Section 405 of the Communications Act provides that the Commission must be afforded an “opportunity to pass” on an issue as a condition precedent to judicial review. 47 U.S.C. § 405(a)(2). In this case, Bartholdi raised its privilege claims, if at all, only before the WTB. Bartholdi’s application for review to the Commission made no mention of either the attorney-client or work-product privilege. Under the plain language of Section 405, an issue cannot be preserved for judicial review simply by raising it before a Bureau of the FCC. It is “the Commission” itself that must be afforded the opportunity to pass on the issue. Id.; cf. Parsippany Hotel Management Co. v. NLRB, 99 F.3d 413, 418 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Bartholdi contends that it preserved the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that issue raised before alj but not nlrb was not preserved (B) holding that despite the merits of the argument the appellant raised on appeal the issue was not preserved for judicial review because it was not raised before the administrative agency (C) holding issues not raised before the district court are not preserved for appeal (D) holding that because the appellant did not present to the administrative agency the argument it raised before this court the issue was not preserved and holding that even if preserved the argument failed (E) holding an issue not raised to the family court is not preserved for appellate review
Output (English): holding that despite the merits of the argument the appellant raised on appeal the issue was not preserved for judicial review because it was not raised before the administrative agency