Laurent Segura appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability benefits. He argues that his limited vision in his left eye constitutes a nonexertional impairment that significantly affects his residual functional capacity and as such the Administrative Law Judge erred in relying exclusively upon the Guidelines. He also argues that the ALJ relied on a hypothetical question posed to a vocational expert which did not incorporate all of his disabilities.

*378 Segura failed to raise the argument that his limited vision is a non-exertional impairment that significantly affects his residual functional capacity in the district court and it is waived. See Chaparro v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1008, 1011 (5th Cir. 1987). There is no reversible error because the ALJ’s hypothetical question incorporated the limitations that he recognized. See Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 436 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.