Opinion ID: 2816692
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Application for CAT Relief

Text: Finally, Gilkes asserts that the IJ erred by determining that his evidence was insufficient to establish his claim for CAT relief. As noted above, because Gilkes was found to be removable as an aggravated felon, we review only constitutional claims and questions of law, including “issues of application of law to fact, where the facts are 11 undisputed and not the subject of challenge.” Kamara, 420 F.3d at 211 (quotation marks omitted). Here, while Gilkes alleges that the IJ failed to properly consider the evidence he submitted, most of his arguments challenge the determination that he is not likely to be tortured upon his return to Guyana—a factual finding over which we lack jurisdiction, as it does not implicate the legal issue of whether the potential mistreatment rises to the level of torture. See Kaplun v. Att’y Gen., 603 F.3d 260, 271-72 (3d Cir. 2010). However, to the extent that Gilkes does present a legal question, the IJ and BIA did not err in denying his application for relief, as there is no indication that the BIA or IJ improperly applied the law to the facts in the record. See Kamara, 420 F.3d at 211. We therefore deny the petition for review. 12