for withholding of removal is significantly higher than the asylum standard. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1249 n. 3 (11th Cir.2006). If an IJ makes a finding that a petitioner is not entitled to asylum, he is “not obligated to make specific findings with respect to withholding of removal.” Id. As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction over Ibrahim’s claim for CAT relief. Although both the IJ and the BIA determined that Ibrahim was ineligible for CAT relief in light of the adverse-credibility determination, Ibrahim’s initial asylum application and her BIA brief did not seek or discuss CAT relief. As a result, Ibra-him did not exhaust her administrative remedies for seeking CAT relief and that we lack jurisdiction to consider this issue. See id. at 1250-51 (<HOLDING>). Further, Fady and Ramy abandoned their own
holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider a claim not raised before the bia even when the bia sua sponte considers the claim holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a claim not brought before the bia even when the bia addresses it sua sponte holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims not raised below by the alien even when the bia reviews the claim sua sponte