probable cause to issue an ICE detainer against her.” Second Donaghy Deck, Dkt. 47-1 at 2, No. l:12-cv-00301-M-DLM (D.R.I. filed Jan. 19, 2013). As we have said time and again, “[w]e have jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of a denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity only insofar as the appeal rests on legal, rather than factual grounds.” Cady, 753 F.3d at 350 (citing Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995)); Goguen v. Allen, 780 F.3d 437, 438 (1st Cir.2015) (dismissing interlocutory appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction because defendants’ arguments “take issue with the district court’s factual assessments and do not present a pure issue of law for this court’s consideration”); Penn v. Escorsio, 764 F.3d 102, 111 (1st Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Morales disputes that Do-naghy
holding that because the standard of review for factual determinations on direct appeal is higher than the standard applied during an interlocutory appeal of a preliminary injunction the interlocutory appeal normally will not establish law of the case on factual matters holding that the court has discretion to hear or to remand legal arguments raised for the first time on appeal holding arguments not raised on appeal waived holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review legal arguments not raised before the bia holding that jurisdiction for interlocutory appeal was lacking where defendants arguments rested on factual not legal grounds