MEMORANDUM **

Ricardo Ramirez-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for a waiver under Section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Ramirez-Gutierrez’s contention that he began lawfully residing continually in the United States when he took steps to establish substantial ties in the United States is unpersuasive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (an alien previously admitted for lawful permanent residence is ineligible for a 212(h) waiver if the alien has not “lawfully resided continuously in the United States for a period of not less than 7 years immediately preceding the date of initiation of proceedings to remove the alien from the United States”).

We lack jurisdiction over Ramirez-Gutierrez’s contention that he began accruing lawful continuous residence when he filed his 1-130 petition because he did not raise the claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

Ramirez-Gutierrez’s equal protection argument is unavailing. Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[A] statute that limits the relief available to a certain class of aliens will be ‘valid unless wholly irrational.’ ”).

*587 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.