
    Victor Leonel CORTEZ-OROZCO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60783.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 13, 2004.
    Salvador Colon, Colon & Olvera, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    John Ashcroft, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Victor Leonel Cortez-Orozeo, a native of Colombia, petitions for review of an order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA’s order affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that denied Cortez-Orozco’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal.

Cortez-Orozeo asserts that the IJ erred by deciding that he did not suffer perseeution and that he did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution if he is removed to Colombia. We construe the Respondent’s motion for summary affirmance as its brief.

We review legal conclusions de novo and findings for substantial evidence. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir.2001). We will not reverse a BIA decision unless the evidence is “ ‘so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could conclude against it.’ ” Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir.2003).

The IJ found that the testimony produced at the hearing was not credible. We give great deference to such credibility determinations. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905 (5th Cir.2002). Cortez-Orozeo does not challenge the IJ’s credibility determination.

The IJ found that Cortez-Orozeo did not provide credible evidence of the threats that he allegedly received. Cortez-Orozeo does not challenge this finding. Cortez-Orozeo does not challenge the IJ’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture.

The failure to provide in an appellate brief an argument as well as citations to authorities and the record on an issue constitutes abandonment of the issue; Cortez-Orozeo has abandoned any challenge related to the above-mentioned issues and findings. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).

The IJ’s findings that Cortez-Orozeo was not subjected to persecution and that he did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution if he is removed to Colombia are supported by the record. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 351 (5th Cir.2002); Adebisi v. INS, 952 F.2d 910, 912 (5th Cir.1992). Cortezr-Orozco did not provide any facts, citations to the record, and citations to authorities in support of his assertions that he has suffered and mil suffer persecution in Colombia. Cortez-Orozco’s conclusional allegations are insufficient to warrant a reversal of the BIA’s decision. Moin, 335 F.3d at 419.

We consider Cortez-Orozco’s asylum claim also as a request for withholding of deportation. Castillo-Rodriguez v. INS, 929 F.2d 181, 185 (5th Cir.1991). Because Cortez-Orozco does not meet the standard for asylum, he does not meet the standard for withholding of deportation. Efe, 293 F.3d at 906. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

The Respondent’s motion for summary affirmance or in the alternative for an extension of time to file a response brief is DENIED.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; MOTION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     