F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008). Because petitioners only challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief before the BIA and this Court, petitioners have abandoned any other claims. See Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 n. 6 (2d Cir.2007). We find that substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’ applications for CAT relief. We have held that, without any particularized evidence, applicants cannot demonstrate that they are more likely than not to be tortured “based solely on the fact that [they are] part of the large class of persons who have illegally departed China” and on general ized evidence concerning conditions in Chinese prisons. Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 159-60 (2d Cir.2005); see also Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109, 118-19 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Here, petitioners provided no basis for the
holding that pain and suffering does not survive the death of the injured holding that detention in squalid overcrowded cells without adequate food water sanitation exercise or medical treatment in haitian prisons does not constitute torture under cat because there is no evidence that haitian authorities have the specific intent to inflict pain or suffering holding that beyond evidence of inhumane prison conditions a cat claimant must provide some evidence that the authorities act with the specific intent to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those detained recognizing as an element of pain and suffering recognizing as separate from pain and suffering