of Falun Gong. Thus, absent some convincing showing that Chinese authorities maintain an active interest in Li or others similarly situated, we cannot find, contrary to the agency, that he established eligibility for asylum. Because the denial of asylum was proper on that ground alone, we need not reach the agency’s adverse credibility finding. Li’s inability to meet the burden of proof for asylum necessarily precludes his eligibility for withholding of removal, which carries a higher burden of proof. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b); Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 178. Further, because Li fails to challenge in his brief to this Court the agency’s denial of his application for CAT relief, we deem any such argument waived. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for
holding issues argued orally but not addressed in brief were waived holding that issues not clearly raised in initial briefs are considered abandoned holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered holding that issues not argued on appeal are deemed abandoned holding that issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal