401 F.3d at 1228 n. 2 (“[W]hen an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned.”). To avoid removal under the Convention Against Torture, “[t]he burden of proof is on the applicant ... to establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). As under the INA, this burden of proof for the applicant is higher than the burden imposed on an applicant for asylum. Therefore, an applicant like Prado, who cannot show that he has a well-founded fear of persecution, also cannot show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured. Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1303; Zheng, 451 F.3d at 1292; Forgue v. United States Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1288 n. 4 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
holding that when the asylum withholding of removal and cat claims are based on the same factual predicate a credibility ruling necessarily forecloses relief in each holding that if an applicant fails to meet the standard for asylum he a fortiori fails to meet the requirements for withholding of removal and relief under the cat recognizing that withholding of removal and cat claims necessarily fail if the applicant is unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim and the factual predicate for the claims is the same recognizing that withholding of removal claims must fail if petitioner is unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim and the claims are based on the same factual predicate holding that where a petitioner fails to establish a claim for asylum on the merits his claims for withholding of removal under the ina and cat also necessarily fail