rules of law. Therefore, petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to their claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief. Although the BIA sua sponte found that petitioners were ineligible for withholding of removal and CAT relief, this does not alter the conclusion that they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to review before this Court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Amaya-Artunduaga, 463 F.3d at 1250-51. Further, the petitioners do not raise any argument in their brief before this Court regarding the IJ’s denial of their application for withholding of removal or CAT relief. Accordingly, even if petitioners had exhausted these claims before the BIA, they have since abandoned them on review. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n. 2 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for
holding that the court has discretion not to consider an issue abandoned on appeal 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 holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue such as cat relief that issue is abandoned