that he will be persecuted if he returns to China, and their decisions are supported by substantial evidence in the record. In his brief to this Court, Jiang argues for the first time that the Chinese g denial of his withholding of removal claim in his brief to this Court. Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 542 n. 1, 546 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). Because the only evidence that Jiang was likely to be tortured depended upon Jiang’s credibility, the adverse credibility determination in this case necessarily precludes success on the claim for CAT relief. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.2005); cf. Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 184-85 (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for
holding it improper to deny cat relief based on adverse credibility finding where objective documentary evidence establishes likelihood of torture holding that the agency may not deny a cat claim solely on the basis of an adverse credibility finding made in the asylum context where the cat claim did not turn upon credibility holding that defeat of asylum claim on credibility grounds does not necessarily preclude relief on a cat claim holding that an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum holding that a negative credibility finding for the purposes of an asylum claim does not preclude relief under cat where documented country conditions corroborate a claim of torture