MEMORANDUM **

Yong Bun Lee petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial *684 of her applications for adjustment of status 1 and waiver of inadmissibility. 2 We deny the petition in part, and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in part.

(1) The BIA determined that without a waiver of inadmissibility, Lee was not eligible for adjustment of status because she had committed a crime involving moral turpitude, which rendered her inadmissible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(2); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). She claims the BIA erred in so doing. We disagree. She had pled guilty to and was sentenced for visa fraud; 3 she had knowingly used a false and fraudulent R-l visa in order to obtain a social security number card from the United States government. While that offense is not a crime involving moral turpitude as a categorical matter, 4 when the modified categorical approach is applied, 5 it is apparent that her particular crime was a crime involving moral turpitude. 6 She, therefore, was not eligible for adjustment of status, absent a waiver.

(2) The BIA also determined that Lee was not eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility because the evidence did not show that her son would suffer extreme hardship, 7 were she removed. The BIA’s determination of lack of “extreme hardship” is a discretionary decision that we lack jurisdiction to review. See Mendoza v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1299, 1801-02 (9th Cir. 2010); Reyes-Melendez v. INS, 342 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003); Hassan v. INS, 927 F.2d 465, 467-68 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir. 2003). 8

(3)Finally, Lee asserts that her due process rights were violated because translation errors prejudiced her, 9 and because hearsay from the case agent regarding the fraud that she and Jung Kim perpetrated was admitted. 10 Our careful review of the record makes it apparent that the BIA did not err when it determined that Lee had not shown that there were serious deficiencies in the translation. 11 Also, hearsay is generally admissible in immigration proceedings, 12 and we note that the case agent *685 did testify and was available for cross examination. There was no violation of Lee’s due process rights.

Petition DENIED in part and DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction in part.