denied on discretion.” Id. at 2 n. 2. To determine whether we have jurisdiction, we examine the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals rather than the Immigration Judge. See Kechkar v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 1080, 1083 (10th Cir.2007). The Board provided two reasons for dismissing the appeal: Mr. Girard-Lara was ineligible, and the agency should deny adjustment of status as a matter of discretion. The resulting issue is whether we have jurisdiction to address both rationales. If we lack jurisdiction over either rationale, we must dismiss the appeal. We lack jurisdiction over the Board’s second rationale (agency discretion). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®; Sosa-Valenzuela v. Holder, 692 F.3d 1103, 1115 (10th Cir.2012); see also Ekasinta v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Discretionary decisions are reviewable when
holding that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the apa to review the denial of an aliens application for adjustment of status where the alien is in removal proceedings holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter 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 this court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of motion to continue to pursue adjustment of status if application to adjust status is futile