
    Ponciano ALBA-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71230.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Nov. 21, 2014.
    Laura Belous, Esquire, Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, Florence, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Ponciano Alba-Gutierrez, pro se.
    OIL, Kohsei Ugumori, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Colorado, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ponciano Alba-Gutierrez (Alba) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order, which dismissed his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a).

Alba’s claim that the BIA violated the Equal Protection Clause in relying on his disability as a basis for denying cancellation of removal is not colorable. Alba failed to identify similarly situated individuals who were treated differently, and the government had a rational reason for denying relief to Alba. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009); see also Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 987-88 (9th Cir.2014).

Alba did not cite the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in his arguments to the BIA or otherwise indicate that he was making a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 794. Because he did not exhaust this claim, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir.2012).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider whether the BIA erred when it weighed the evidence underlying its discretionary determination. See Mendez-Castro, 552 F.3d at 979. Our review here is limited to legal and constitutional errors, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and Alba does not identify any legal error committed by the BIA in its review of the record.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     