ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
The Petitioner, Mr. Sergio Girard-Lara, is a Mexican citizen who was removable and ordered to appear at a removal proceeding. He requested adjustment of his status, but the agency denied relief for two reasons: (1) Mr. Girard-Lara was ineligible; and (2) adjustment of status was unwarranted as a matter of discretion. We have jurisdiction to address the agency’s decision on eligibility,, but not its further denial of relief on discretionary grounds. Thus, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.1
THE AGENCY DECISION
In determining that Mr. Girard-Lara was ineligible for adjustment of status, the Immigration Judge relied on a California conviction for drug offenses. The Immigration Judge added in the alternative that he would have denied adjustment of status as a matter of discretion even if Mr. Gir-ard-Lara had been eligible. Agreeing with both reasons, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the administrative appeal.
LACK OF JURISDICTION
In the subsequent appeal to our court, Mr. Girard-Lara argues that the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding that he was ineligible for adjustment of status. According to Mr. Girard-Lara, the Immigration Judge and Board erred in finding that a deferred entry of judgment under California Penal Code § 1000 is a conviction for immigration purposes. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 5. But Mr. Girard-Lara is not challenging the agency’s additional rationale: that it should disallow adjustment of status as a matter of discretion. Mr. Gir-ard-Lara even points out that “if this Court were to hold that [he] is statutorily *836eligible, [he] would still be 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.2
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 that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter).
Discretionary decisions are reviewable when they are based on a question of law, such as eligibility for an adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Kechkar, 500 F.3d at 1084. As a result, we must consider the possibility of a different outcome in the agency if it had found Mr. Girard-Lara eligible for adjustment of status. That possibility is absent here.
When the Board of Immigration Appeals confronted the administrative appeal, the Immigration Judge had already noted the dismissal of the drug convictions. Still, the Immigration Judge pointed to:
• other convictions for driving while intoxicated and false swearing in an immigration matter,
• Mr. Girard-Lara’s failure to take responsibility or express remorse for his actions, and
• his failure to pay taxes.
There is no reason to believe that the agency would have made a different discretionary decision if it had determined that Mr. Girard-Lara were eligible for adjustment of status. As a result, the agency’s discretionary decision did not rest on an issue of law.
CONCLUSION
The agency’s decision on eligibility did not affect its exercise of discretion. In these circumstances, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the petition.