the IJ applied the wrong standard by requiring a specific nexus between the harm Reyes-Gomez feared and a government official in the Dominican Republic. Reyes-Gomez concedes, however, that to obtain deferral of removal under the CAT, he must prove his torture would be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity”. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 n. 8 (5th Cir.2002) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1)). Therefore, his true claim is that the IJ erred in finding that he failed to meet his burden of proof in this respect. Such claim is based on the IJ’s factual finding; therefore, we lack jurisdic tion. See Rosales, 426 F.3d at 736; see also Hamid v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 642, 647 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Reyes-Gomez’s request to stay this
holding that we lacked jurisdiction to review the veterans courts determination that equitable tolling did not apply in the case before it holding that exercise of prosecutorial discretion was not subject to judicial review absent a constitutional claim or question of law holding it is a question of fact holding it lacked jurisdiction to review an aggravated felons cat claim where it did not concern a constitutional issue or question of law holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury