UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1027
ZACHARY KONGNSO KEHLA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 24, 2012 Decided: August 22, 2012
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle L.C. Beach-Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW
ASSOCIATES, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F.
Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Nancy K. Canter, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Zachary Kongnso Kehla, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum,
withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.
This court will uphold the Board’s decision unless it
is manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.
The standard of review of the agency’s findings is narrow and
deferential. Factual findings are affirmed if supported by
substantial evidence. There is substantial evidence to support
a finding unless the evidence was such that any reasonable
adjudicator would have been compelled to conclude to the
contrary. Therefore, we review an adverse credibility
determination for substantial evidence and give broad deference
to the Board’s credibility determination. The Board and the
immigration judge must provide specific, cogent reasons for
making an adverse credibility determination. We recognize that
omissions, inconsistent statements, contradictory evidence, and
inherently improbable testimony can support an adverse
credibility determination. The existence of only a few such
inconsistencies, omissions, or contradictions can be sufficient
for the Board to make an adverse credibility finding as to the
2
alien’s entire testimony regarding past persecution. An
inconsistency can serve as a basis for an adverse credibility
determination even if it does not go to the heart of the alien’s
claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006); see also
Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272-74 (4th Cir. 2011) (case
citations omitted). An adverse credibility finding can support
a conclusion that the alien did not establish past persecution.
See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 121-23 (4th Cir. 2007);
see also Chen v. Attorney Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir.
2006) (denial of asylum relief can be based solely upon an
adverse credibility finding).
We have reviewed the record and considered Kehla’s
arguments and conclude that there was substantial evidence
supporting the adverse credibility finding. We note that there
were several inconsistencies in the record regarding critical
parts of Kehla’s claim for relief. We also note that the
immigration judge’s consideration of Kehla’s testimonial
demeanor as one basis for the adverse credibility finding was
supported by specific and cogent reasons.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. * We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
Kehla does not argue that the immigration judge erred in
denying his request under the CAT. Accordingly, that claim is
abandoned. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th
(Continued)
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
Cir. 2004) (finding that failure to raise a challenge in an
opening brief results in abandonment of that challenge);
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999) (same).
4