George Queeley appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus with prejudice. Queeley argues that the district court erred in concluding that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) properly denied his motion to reopen his deportation case in light of INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001). He has not, however, established that the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen because Queeley was not entitled to discretionary relief, even in light of St. Cyr, as his 1998 marihuana conviction constituted an aggravated felony. See 8 *2 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2); 21 U.S.C. § 844(a).

Queeley also contends that the BIA denied him equal protection by refusing to reopen his case, although it allowed another individual to move for discretionary relief or cancellation of removal. Queeley, however, has not established that he and the other permanent resident to whom he refers were “similarly situated.” See City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.