UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1896
YARED ASSEFA ABEBE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 24, 2012 Decided: March 8, 2012
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Garfield, GARFIELD LAW GROUP, LLP, Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Russell
J. E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kristen Giuffreda
Chapman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Yared Assefa Abebe, 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”). Abebe claims that the adverse credibility finding is
not supported by substantial evidence. We deny the petition for
review.
This court’s recent opinion in Djadjou v. Holder, 662
F.3d 265, 272-74 (4th Cir. 2011), summarized the law regarding
our review of the Board’s final order. 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 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
2
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 bases 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)
(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.
3
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 listed
specific and cogent reasons in support of the finding. It was
not an abuse of discretion for the immigration judge and the
Board to find that Abebe’s numerous inconsistencies were
critical to his claim for relief. We further conclude that the
immigration judge considered the entire record and substantial
evidence supports the finding that Abebe’s independent evidence
falls short of overcoming the adverse credibility finding. *
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
*
Abebe 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
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