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.