claims. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding and denial of asylum because the BIA had reason to doubt Ngongang’s testimony based on the numerous inconsistencies and omissions, and her failure to provide corroborative evidence to substantiate her claims. She likewise has failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal under the INA and under the CAT, because they carry a higher burden of proof than asylum claims. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. PETITION DENIED. 1 . Ngongang does not raise any argument in her brief regarding the BIA’s denial of her claim that the IJ’s lack of neutrality violated her due process rights, so she has abandoned that issue. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, to the extent that Ngongang
holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue such as cat relief that issue is abandoned holding that the court has discretion not to consider an issue abandoned on appeal holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned holding that where an appellant fails to raise arguments regarding an issue on appeal that issue is deemed abandoned holding when a party fails to provide arguments or supporting authority for his assertion the party is deemed to have abandoned the issue