that her state convictions for making terroristic threats were 439, 443-44 (7th Cir.2007). We likewise lack jurisdiction to review Sutariya’s equal protection and due process claims regarding her removal proceedings. As the record shows, Sutariya did not raise any constitutional challenges to the final order of removal; rather, she appears to only have raised some of them in her appeal of the IJ’s negative reasonable fear finding, which not only was in a separate context and dealt with different issues, but was filed more than ten days after she received notice of the DHS’s intent to issue a final order of removal. Therefore, we also lack jurisdiction over her constitutional challenges to the final order of removal. See Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 494 F.3d 1311, 1316 (11th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Amaya-Artunduaga, 463 F.3d at 1251 (holding
holding that we lack jurisdiction over unexhausted equal protection claims holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause holding that the state law violated equal protection principles