testimony Anaya gave at his removal hearing, and (2) failed to consider the appropriate factors giving rise to his drunk-driving conviction. We consider each of these alleged errors in turn. II Before considering whether the BIA erred in relying on Anaya’s testimony at the removal hearing, we must first determine whether we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s alleged error. We do not have jurisdiction to evaluate discretionary decisions by the Attorney General, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), and therefore lack jurisdiction over the BIA’s ultimate determination that Anaya committed a “particularly serious crime” when he drunkenly drove his car into an elderly victim’s house and caused part of the wall to collapse on her. See Unuakhaulu v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 931, 935 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, we retain
holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case holding that we lack jurisdiction when the relief sought is a review of the consuls decision denying them application for a visa holding that when the attorney general decides that the aliens offense was a particularly serious crime we lack jurisdiction to review such a decision because it is discretionary holding that we have jurisdiction to review the award or denial of attorney fees under  1447c