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 *553 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.