before the IJ with counsel, admitted the factual allegations contained in the NTA, and conceded removability. 2 . The petitioners do not raise any challenge in their brief to the BIA’s denial of protection under the CAT and have thus abandoned this claim. See Sepulveda v. United States Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) ("When an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned.”). 3 . Alvarez also filed an application for asylum, relying exclusively on the claims raised in Varan's application. 4 . Because the IJ found Varan to be credible, we accept the facts set forth in his asylum application and testimony as true for purposes of evaluating his asylum claim. See Niftaliev v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 504 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). 5 . A “Molotov cocktail” is a small home-made
holding that contrary determination must be compelled to reverse the ij holding that where the ij finds the petitioner to be credible his testimony must be accepted holding that an ij made an explicit credibility when the ij found testimony not credible based on several enumerated inconsistencies holding the question of whether an accomplice is credible and the weight to be given to the testimony are issues for the jury to determine 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