unemployment rate in Poland. The Government contends that we lack jurisdiction to review this claim because Dziwak’s arguments “address only the question of what is likely to happen” if he returns to Poland. Resp’t’s. Br. at 20. We agree. The IJ found Dziwak credible, but determined that “the conjecture stated by [Dziwak] and a series of suppositions strung together as to what may occur if [he] is returned to Poland is not sufficient to meet ... the more stringent more likely than not standard.” J.A. at 16. Thus, the IJ concluded that Dziwak failed to establish that what he feared was more likely than not to happen, which is the factual part of the mixed question of whether there is a likelihood of a threat to life or freedom. Cf. Kaplun v. Att’y Gen., 602 F.3d 260, 271 (3d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Although Dziwak’s brief conflates the two
holding that bpps may not engage in legal assistance make inquiries or answer legal questions holding that in likelihood of torture inquiries what is likely to happen is the factual aspect and whether that amounts to torture is the legal aspect recognizing that what is a reasonable area is a factual matter to be determined in each noncompete case holding that communication was initiated by the question well what is going to happen to me now recognizing that the primary source for determining whether a contract is clear is the text of the document itself when an instrument is unambiguous it construction and legal effect will be based upon what is found within its four corners