de novo. D-Muhumed v. U.S. Attorney General, 388 F.3d 814, 817 (11th Cir.2004). The BIA’s findings of fact are reviewed under the substantial evidence test, and we “must affirm the [IJ’s] decision if it is ‘supported by reasonable, su she is eligible for withholding of removal. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set out above, we find that Go has abandoned his claim for cancellation of removal and that his wife, Tan, is not entitled to the relief she seeks. PETITION DENIED. 1 . On appeal, Tan does not present arguments concerning her asylum claim or her relief under CAT, and Go does not present arguments concerning the denial of his claim for cancellation of removal. As a result, those issues are abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Attorney General, 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Because Go had arrived four years prior
holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned 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 the appellant was deemed to have abandoned an issue for which he failed to provide any argument or supporting authority holding that an issue is abandoned when not raised in an appellate brief