NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 11 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ISRAEL AGUILERA ALONZO, No. 20-73069

Petitioner, Agency No. A200-196-610 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: FRIEDLAND and KOH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** District Judge.

Jose Israel Aguilera Alonzo (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. the denial by an immigration judge (“IJ”) of Petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b), and we deny the petition.^[1]

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determinations that Petitioner was not credible and that Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to independently corroborate his claims. “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). Petitioner has advanced no substantive argument that the BIA’s conclusions about Petitioner’s credibility or corroborating evidence were not supported by substantial evidence. Rather, Petitioner asserted in a single conclusory statement in his opening brief that “the IJ and BIA’s findings with respect to the Petitioner’s credibility were not based on substantial evidence.” “Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.” Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). We hold, therefore, that Petitioner has forfeited any challenge to the BIA’s adverse credibility determination or its conclusion about his lack of corroborating evidence.^[2]

In the absence of credible testimony or sufficient corroborating evidence, Petitioner cannot prevail on either of his claims. To qualify for withholding of removal, Petitioner bears the burden of “show[ing] a ‘clear probability’ of future persecution.” Garcia, 749 F.3d at 791 (quoting Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C) (providing that an applicant for withholding has the burden of proof). Because Petitioner failed to offer credible testimony or corroborating evidence of persecution, the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner had not sustained his burden of proof is supported by substantial evidence. See Garcia, 749 F.3d at 791 (“Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and the BIA’s denial of relief under withholding of removal because [the applicant] cannot overcome the adverse credibility determination.”).

Petitioner’s CAT claim fails for similar reasons. Because that claim was based on the same testimony the BIA and IJ had found was not credible and lacked support from independent corroborating evidence, the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner could not show it was “more likely than not [he] would be tortured if removed to [Honduras]” was also supported by substantial evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1200 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[The applicant] bears the burden of presenting evidence to establish ‘substantial grounds for believing that [he] would be in danger of being subjected to torture in the country of removal.’” (second alteration in original) (quoting Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir. 2001))).

PETITION DENIED.