UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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 
3

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)
4

(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)
5

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).