
    Nikiforos P. KALFOUNTZOS, Petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, Respondent.
    No. 09-72253.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 20, 2011.
    Nikiforos P. Kalfountzos, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
    
      Steven A. Barthlow, Eric T. Wooden, General, United States of America Railroad Retirement Board, Chicago, IL, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nikiforos P. Kalfountzos petitions pro se for review of the Railroad Retirement Board’s (“Board”) decision affirming the hearing officer’s denial of his application for a disability annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act. We have jurisdiction under 45 U.S.C. § 231g, which incorporates 45 U.S.C. § 355(f). We deny the petition for review.

We uphold the Board’s decision because it “ ‘is supported by substantial evidence, is not arbitrary and has a reasonable basis in the law.’ ” Calderon v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 780 F.2d 812, 813 (9th Cir.1986) (citation omitted); see also 45 U.S.C. § 231(a)(1) (defining “employer”); id. § 231(f)(1) (defining “years of service”); id. § 231a (setting forth required years of service for annuity eligibility).

Kalfountzos’s remaining contentions, including his equal protection challenge, are unpersuasive. See U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174-179, 101 S.Ct. 453, 66 L.Ed.2d 368 (1981) (rejecting plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge to Railroad Retirement Act under the rational basis test).

We do not consider contentions that Kalfountzos did not raise before the Board. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004) (“ ‘[I]f a petitioner wishes to preserve an issue for appeal, he must first raise it in the proper administrative forum.’ ” (citation omitted)).

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