
    Nanh VONGSAYADETH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71486.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2015.
    
    Filed April 24, 2015.
    Clare Hanusz, Esquire, Law Office of Clare Hanusz, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Kathryn DeAngelis, Corey Leigh Farrell, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, N.R. SMITH, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nanh Vongsayadeth appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying her application for adjustment of status. The BIA found that Vong-sayadeth was eligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255, but denied adjustment as a matter of discretion. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we lack jurisdiction to review a discretionary denial of adjustment of status.

In general, “the decision to deny [an] application for adjustment of status is a discretionary determination, and is therefore unreviewable.” Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 748 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I)). While “[t]his court retains jurisdiction over petitions for review that raise colorable constitutional claims or questions of law,” a petitioner may not attack a discretionary decision simply by phrasing her arguments as a legal challenge. Id. at 748-49. Vongsayadeth challenges only the BIA’s determination that her testimony was not credible. A credibility determination is a finding of fact, Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.2011), and “courts lack jurisdiction to review factual determinations underlying adjustment-of-status decisions,” Carrillo de Palacios v. Holder, 708 F.3d 1066, 1071 (9th Cir.2013) (quoting Morales-Izquierdo v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 600 F.3d 1076, 1084 (9th Cir.2010)). Because Vongsaya-deth has not presented a legal challenge to the BIA’s discretionary denial of adjust^ ment of status, we lack jurisdiction.

We therefore dismiss the petition for review.

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