With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". recounting Mr. Ruiz’s evidence that police “might or might not” help a person, like Mr. Ruiz, who has gang-related tattoos and who has been removed from the United States. R. at 215. Thus, the agency did not utilize a flawed willful-blindness standard. Finally, we turn to this court’s jurisdiction over Mr. Ruiz’s second and third CAT arguments. We conclude that those arguments are not reviewable as they attempt to raise issues of fact. Specifically, to determine the likelihood of governmental acquiescence to torture (Mr. Ruiz’s second argument), and whether the evidence as a whole shows Mr. Ruiz’s eligibility for CAT relief (his third argument), we would have to weigh the evidence in this case. The criminal-alien bar prevents that. See Siwe v. Holder, 742 F.3d 603, 613 (5th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>); Gallimore, 715 F.3d at 690 (observing that

A: holding that cat applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country
B: 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
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 petitioner must demonstrate it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon his return
C.