record, that he failed to show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to Jamaica. This is a factual argument that does not raise any legal or constitutional issues. We have repeatedly held that we lack jurisdiction to consider a challenge to the BIA’s decision that an applicant failed to meet his burden to warrant relief under the Convention Against Torture. See, e.g., Tran v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 937, 943 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Hamid v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2005) for the proposition that courts lack jurisdiction to consider a “petitioner’s CAT claim where he urge[s] the court to review whether the BIA correctly considered, interpreted, and weighed the evidence presented”); Luambano v. Holder, 565 Fed.Appx. 410, 414 (6th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>); Arestov v. Holder, 489 Fed.Appx. 911, 917
recognizing probable cause as complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution in new york internal quotation marks and brackets omitted holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioners argument that the evidence in the record clearly establishes that he is more likely than not to face torture if removed citation quotation marks and brackets omitted holding that apprendi error is harmless if the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been the same absent the error internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that to qualify for protection under the convention against torture an alien must show that he will more likely than not be tortured in his home country if removed holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review whether alien established that he will more likely than not be tortured if  removed