corroborating evidence. See Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270, 1280-81 (11th Cir.2009) (rejecting two of the BIA’s credibility determinations, finding that two other credibility determinations were “not as easily rejected,” and remanding “to the BIA to enable the BIA or IJ to reevaluate its decision ... and its credibility determinations in light of this opinion and in light of the medical records”); see also Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. PETITION GRANTED. 1 . Petitioners’ claims are based on the asylum application of Olivares, the lead petitioner. 2 . Olivares failed to argue in his initial brief that the IJ or BIA erred in denying his claim for CAT relief. Accordingly, he has abandoned any claims regarding CAT relief. See Imelda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 724, 727 (11th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). 3 . The Government contends Olivares did not
holding that a party waived the claims she failed to pursue in her merit brief holding that issues not raised in the initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned holding the petitioner abandoned her cat claim when she failed to raise it in her initial appellate brief holding that a party abandoned an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief holding that an issue is abandoned when not raised in an appellate brief