process issues, we conclude that they fail to raise a constitutional claim. Aside from the label, he makes no attempt to tie his claims of factual and discretionary error to the Due Process Clause. Instead, he simply asks this court to re-weigh the evidence and reverse the BIA’s discretionary determination. Such “challenges directed solely at the agency’s discretionary and factual determinations remain outside the scope of judicial review.” Diallo, 447 F.3d at 1281; accord Jarbough v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 483 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir.2007) (“Recasting challenges to factual or discretionary determinations as due process or other constitutional claims is clearly insufficient to give this Court jurisdiction under § 125[2](a)(2)(D).”); Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Saloum v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration
holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of motion to continue to pursue adjustment of status if application to adjust status is futile holding no jurisdiction to review claim that agency failed to properly weigh equities and hardship before denying adjustment of status despite recharacterization as due process claim holding that the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on the merits of the underlying application for adjustment of status was a discretionary decision under the adjustment of status statute and this court therefore did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the bias ruling holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter