Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir.1993). For relief under the CAT, an applicant must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to her country of origin. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Kupczyk bases her application for relief on three specific incidents which occurred in Poland, allegedly due to her status as a Jehovah’s Witness. First, she claims that on July 28, 1996, she was attacked by “a band of thugs” and suffered bruises and abrasions, as well as a broken nose, and had to spend three days in the hospital. She then began receiving phone calls late at n ed to offer any evidence that they are likely to be detained, let alone tortured, should they be removed to Poland or the Slovak Republic. See Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 183 (3d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). As we cannot conclude that the evidence 
 Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) holding that the standard for withholding of removal is a showing that it is more likely than not that a petitioner will face persecution upon her return (C) holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review whether alien established that he will more likely than not be tortured if  removed (D) holding that cat applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country (E) holding that petitioner must demonstrate it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon his return
Output (English): holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review whether alien established that he will more likely than not be tortured if  removed