Jose Natalio Martinez-Guerrero is legally blind. 1 He pled guilty to one count of aiding and abetting possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). At his sentencing hearing, he asked the court to depart downward from the low end of the applicable guideline range of 27-33 months. He contended that his blindness was an “extraordinary physical impairment” for which a downward departure was authorized by Sentencing Guideline § 5H1.4.

The district court determined that the Bureau of Prisons could accommodate blind prisoners such as Martinez-Guerrero, and for that reason found that he did not suffer from an “extraordinary physical impairment” which would permit the court to depart downward. Concluding that it had *620 no discretion under the guidelines to depart downward, the court imposed a prison sentence of 27 months. Martinez-Guerrero appeals. We affirm.

JURISDICTION

The government argues we. lack jurisdiction to review Martinez-Guerrero’s sentence because the district court exercised its discretion when it refused to depart downward. See United States v. Morales, 898 F.2d 99, 102 (9th Cir.1990). We reject this argument because the record does not support it. The record plainly shows that the district court refused to depart downward because, according to its interpretation of section 5H1.4 and case law on which it relied, it had no discretion to depart downward.

“We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s refusal to depart downward based on its interpretation of the law as barring such departure.” United States v. Goroza, 941 F.2d 905, 908 (9th Cir.1991).

MERITS

The applicable subsection of the policy statement for U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 reads:

This text is a clarification of the previous section 5H1.4, and became effective on November 1, 1991. 2 See U.S.S.G.App. C, amend. 386.

A departure under section 5H1.4 involves a two-step process. As explained by the Tenth Circuit:

United States v. Slater, 971 F.2d 626, 635 (10th Cir.1992).

We agree with the Tenth Circuit that the finding whether a disability is “an extraordinary physical impairment” under section 5H1.4 is a factual finding. See, e.g., United States v. Roe, 976 F.2d 1216, 1218 (9th Cir.1992) (reversing a factual finding that extreme childhood abuse of defendant was not extraordinary under section 5H1.3). We review a district court’s factual findings for clear error, and will not reverse unless we are left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Ramos, 923 F.2d 1346, 1356 (9th Cir.1991).

Here, the district court relied on the Bureau of Prisons’ ability to care for Martinez-Guerrero in finding that his disability was not an extraordinary impairment under section 5H1.4. The ability of the Bureau of Prisons to accommodate a disability is a factor which the district court may consider in making this factual finding. United States v. Hilton, 946 F.2d 955, 957-59 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Pozzy, 902 F.2d 133, 138-39 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 943 , 111 S.Ct. 353 , 112 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990); United States v. Greenwood, 928 F.2d 645 (4th Cir.1991). But it is not the only factor.

A district court may consider any number of circumstances in making its finding on the question of extraordinary physical impairment under section 5H1.4. See United States v. Long, 977 F.2d 1264 (8th Cir.1992) (district court’s downward departure under section 5H1.4 affirmed on grounds that “an extraordinary physical impairment that results in extreme vulner *621 ability is a legitimate basis for departure”); United States v. Lara, 905 F.2d 599, 603-05 (2d Cir.1990) (district court’s downward departure affirmed based on the defendant’s “potential for victimization” due to a combination of U.S.S.G. §§ 5H1.1 (age), 5H1.3 (mental condition) & 5H1.4).

In the present case, the only circumstances presented to the district court were that Martinez-Guerrero was legally blind and that the prison at Springfield could accommodate his blindness. On the basis of this evidence, the district court found that Martinez-Guerrero did not have an extraordinary physical impairment under section 5H1.4. We cannot say this finding is clearly erroneous. Thus, on the record before us, Martinez-Guerrero did not have an extraordinary physical impairment under section 5H1.4. Because he did not, the district court did not err in concluding that it had no discretion to depart downward from the guidelines.

AFFIRMED.

. An ophthalmologist estimated Martinez-Guerrero’s visual acuity at 20/200 and expected a reduction to less than 20/400 over the next several years.

. Martinez-Guerrero committed his offense in April 1991. Because the subsequent amendment merely clarified the guideline, we may apply it retroactively. See United States v. Scarano, 975 F.2d 580, 587 (9th Cir.1992).