Case Name: Domingo Giovanny VILLAMIZAR, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-20
Citations: 135 F. App'x 410
Docket Number: No. 04-15166; BIA No. A79-429-686
Parties: Domingo Giovanny VILLAMIZAR, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 135
Pages: 410–411

Head Matter:
Domingo Giovanny VILLAMIZAR, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
No. 04-15166.
BIA No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 20, 2005.
Geoffrey A. Hoffman, Ira J. Kurzban, Kurzban Kurzban Weinger & Tetzeli, P.A., Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Jamie M. Dowd, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and COOGLER, District Judge.
Honorable L. Scott Coogler, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Domingo Giovanny Villamizar, a Columbian native, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeal's ("BIA") summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his claims for asylum, for withholding of removal, and his claim under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT").
After oral argument and after careful consideration of the briefs and the record, we find no merit to petitioner's appeal. First, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner's voluntary departure request because he failed to seek BIA review of the IJ's denial of this form of relief as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). We deem the issue .alleging improper denial of CAT relief abandoned, for failure to address it in the brief. See Mendoza v. U.S. Attorney General, 327 F.3d 1283, 1286 n. 3 (11th Cir.2003). Finally, in denying withholding of removal, the BIA affirmed the IJ's decision discrediting petitioner's claim that he is likely to suffer persecution on account of an imputed political opinion or any other statutorily protected ground. We find that the IJ's, and thus the BIA's, decision was supported by substantial evidence. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283-84 (11th Cir.2001). Thus, the BIA's denial of petitioner's claim for withholding of removal was proper.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.