the undisputed facts do not establish that Perez currently lives in the Dominican Republic or is a member of the police force in that country, as Pau-lino asserts. Moreover, the evidence does not show that any public official in the Dominican Republic would consent or acquiesce to the mistreatment of Paulino. The record, therefore, does not compel the conclusion that Paulino is entitled to deferral of removal under the CAT. Finally, to the extent that Paulino takes issue with the BIA’s resolution of factual issues (such as whether Perez lives in the Dominican Republic or is a police officer there), and its weighing of the evidence presented, we agree with respondent that we lack jurisdiction to review those issues. See Jarbough v. Att’y Gen., 483 F.3d 184, 189 (3d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). III. For the reasons stated, we will deny the
recognizing that the bia must defer to the factual findings of the ij unless they are clearly erroneous holding that an attorneys arguments are not evidence recognizing that arguments such as that an ij or the bia incorrectly weighed evidence failed to consider evidence or improperly weighed equitable factors are not questions of law under  1252a2d holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte holding that review of questions not raised to the bia is barred