weighing of the evidence and conclusion that the Jamaican government would not be willfully blind to his torture, those are factual issues that we lack jurisdiction to review. See id. at 507-08; Kaplun v. Att’y Gen., 602 F.3d 260, 271-72 (3d Cir.2010). Finally, because Clarke failed to appeal to the Board the IJ’s determination that he had been convicted of a particularly serious crime, he did not preserve that issue for our review. See Lin v. Att’y Gen., 543 F.3d 114, 121-(3d Cir.2008). Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review. 1 . The Immigration Judge informed Clarke of his right to counsel, sent Clarke a list of affordable and pro bono attorneys and legal advisors, and gave Clarke two continuances to find counsel. See Leslie v. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 171, 182 (3d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 . Clarke
holding that aggravation was warranted where respondent admitted and the referee found that the respondent had lied in correspondence to the pcc holding that an immigration judges failure to advise the respondent of the availability of free legal services and to ascertain that the respondent has received a list of such programs invalidates a subsequently entered removal order holding that regulations that permitted an immigration official to reinstate removal orders violated the immigration and nationality act holding that an interim decision of a court in the resident country was determinative  as to whether respondents action represented a wrongful removal because it granted respondent the right to remove the child from germany in the circumstances presented holding that since the basis for the respondents order of removal and the denial of relief no longer exists the respondent has presented exceptional circumstances justifying reopening