UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1684
WORKINEH GETACHEW AYELE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: February 29, 2012
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICES OF ALAN M. PARRA, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation Counsel, Sara
J. Bergene, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Workineh Getachew Ayele, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, 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 of removal and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). Ayele claims that the adverse
credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence,
the Board and the immigration judge failed to consider the
entire record and his stateside political activities established
a well-founded fear of persecution. We deny the petition for
review.
We recently summarized the law regarding this Court’s
review of a Board’s final order in Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d
265, 272-74 (4th Cir. 2011). As we noted in Djadjou, an alien
has the burden of showing he is eligible for relief. In order
to show eligibility for asylum, he must show that he was
subjected to past persecution or has a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of a protected ground such as political
opinion. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1) (2011). If the applicant
establishes past persecution, he has the benefit of a rebuttable
presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution. In order to
be eligible for withholding from removal, an alien must show a
2
clear probability of persecution on account of a protected
ground.
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. Substantial evidence exists 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 are appropriate reasons for
making 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
determination as to the 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)
3
(2006); see also Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 272-74 (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 conclude that substantial evidence supports the
adverse credibility finding. The immigration judge and the
Board listed specific and cogent reasons for making the finding.
It was not an abuse of discretion for the immigration judge and
the Board to find that Ayele’s numerous omissions were related
directly to his claim for relief. We further conclude that the
immigration judge considered the entire record and substantial
evidence supports the finding that Ayele’s independent evidence
falls short of overcoming the adverse credibility finding. We
also conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding
that Ayele failed to show that he had a well-founded fear of
persecution based on his political activities in the United
States. *
*
Ayele has abandoned any challenge to the denial of relief
under the CAT by failing to raise it in his brief. Accordingly,
this Court need not review the issue. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft,
371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) (finding that the failure
(Continued)
4
We deny the petition for review. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the Court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
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).
5