**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **1684**

WORKINEH GETACHEW AYELE , P etitioner ,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. , Attorney General , Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration A ppeals

.

Submitted : February 16, 2012 Decided: February 29, 2012

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition d enied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICES OF ALAN M. PARRA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Nei man - 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Workineh Getachew Ayele, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals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 immigrat ion 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 immig ration 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 C ourt’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 , a n 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 pe rsecution. In order to be eligible for withholding from removal, an alien must show a3 clear probability of persecution on account of a protected ground. This C ourt will uphold the Board’s decision unless it is manifestly contrary to the law and an ab use 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 reas onable 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 cr edibility 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 inconsi stency 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 fin ding 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 solel y 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 fo r 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 Aye le’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 present ed in the materials before the C ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIE D

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).