Nanh Vongsayadeth v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NANH VONGSAYADETH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71486
Agency No. A099-634-044
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2015 **
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: TASHIMA, N.R. SMITH, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Nanh Vongsayadeth appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) decision denying her application for adjustment of status. The BIA found
that Vongsayadeth was eligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255, but
FILED
APR 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

-- 1 of 2 --

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 Vongsayadeth has not presented a legal challenge to the
BIA’s discretionary denial of adjustment of status, we lack jurisdiction.
We therefore dismiss the petition for review.
DISMISSED.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --