other statements, the IJ was sim ual disputes and determinations regarding CAT claims “are foreclosed by the criminal alien bar”); Green v. Att’y Gen., 694 F.3d 503, 507-08 (3d Cir.2012) (concluding that factual determinations regarding government acquiescence and eligibility for CAT relief are subject to the criminal-alien bar); Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 243, 249-50 (4th Cir.2008) (stating that the “likelihood that the [criminal alien] would suffer torture at the government’s consent or acquiescence” presents a factual question beyond review); Boakai v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2006) (concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider criminal alien’s “argument that the BIA was wrong in rejecting the CAT claim”); Hamid v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 642, 647 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); but see Edu v. Holder, 624 F.3d 1137, 1141-42
holding that criminal aliens argument that the ij abused its discretion by not granting her a continuance does not present a constitutional claim or issue of law that this court has jurisdiction to consider holding that the criminalalien bar applied to aliens cat claim that the ij failed to correctly consider  interpret  and weigh the evidence holding that the jurisdictional bar applies to the denial of deferral of removal under the cat holding that although the ij did not explicitly analyze the cat claim the denial of the claim was linguistically separate from the denials of asylum and withholding under the ina holding substantial evidence supported the denial of cat relief where the petitioners cat claim was based on the same testimony the ij found not credible and the petitioner pointed to no other evidence that the ij should have considered