
    Maryna OZEROVA, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
    No. 13-14081
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    March 24, 2014.
    Alexander J. Segal, The Law of Grin-berg & Segal, PLLC, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    
      Michelle Ressler, District Counsel’s Office, Miami, FL, Aimee J. Carmichael, Ali Manuchehry, David V. Bernal, Krystal Samuels, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before HULL, MARCUS, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Maryna Ozerova — who had the burden of proof — seeks review of the BIA’s final order affirming the IJ’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Briefly stated, the appeal presents these issues:

1. Whether substantial evidence supports the denial of Ozerova’s application for asylum and withholding of removal based upon an adverse-credibility determination and a lack of corroborating evidence.

2. Whether the BIA erred in concluding that, in the alternative, Ozerova failed to establish the eligibility for asylum.

The IJ and BIA provided specific and cogent reasons for the adverse-credibility finding (the record does not compel the conclusion that the adverse-credibility was unfounded), and substantial evidence supports the determinations of adverse credibility and lack of reasonably available corroboration. Besides, the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions to deny Ozerova’s application for asylum — no past persecution proved and no countrywide persecution proved — were based on reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence; and the record as a whole does not compel reversal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. For background, see Ruiz v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254-59 (11th Cir.2006).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       Ozerova did not challenge the IJ’s denial of her eligibility for CAT relief in her appeal to the BIA. As a result, she did not exhaust her administrative remedies relating to her claim for CAT relief, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250-51 (11th Cir.2006). Ozerova also does not raise before this Court any challenge to the denial of the CAT claim, thereby abandoning her claim on appeal. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005) (a party abandons claims that she does not argue in her brief). Thus, this appeal concerns only the denial of Ozerova's petition for asylum and withholding of removal.
     