UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2126

MADELEINE KONOU AMEGBEDJI; KOSSI SEYRAM AMEGBEDJI,

Petitioners,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: April 20, 2012 Decided: May 2, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew P. Johnson, LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. JOHNSON, New York, 

New York, for Petitioners. Stuart Delery, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, 

Rachel L. Browning, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Madeleine Konou Amegbedji and Kossi Seyram Amegbedji 

petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the immigration 

judge’s order denying their application for asylum, withholding 

from removal and withholding under the Convention Against 

Torture (“CAT”).1

 We deny the petition for review.

An alien has the burden of showing she is eligible for 

relief. In order to show eligibility for asylum, she must show 

that she was subjected to past persecution or has a well-founded 

fear of persecution on account of a protected ground such as 

political opinion. If the applicant establishes past 

persecution, she has the benefit of a rebuttable presumption of 

a well-founded fear of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1) 

(2011). 

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 

 1 Madeleine Amegbedji was the lead applicant and Kossi 

Amegbedji was the derivative applicant. 
3

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); Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272-74 & n.1 (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 General, 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 listed 
4

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 Amegbedji’s numerous inconsistencies, 

particularly those concerning her nationality, were critically 

important to her claim for relief. Given the nature of the 

inconsistencies and Amegbedji’s reluctance to admitting to

having more than one passport and confirming her actual country 

of birth and her evasiveness regarding her current address, we

further conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding 

that Amegbedji’s independent evidence falls short of overcoming 

the adverse credibility finding.2

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

 2 The Petitioners have abandoned any challenge to the denial 

of withholding of removal and the denial of relief under the CAT 

by failing to raise an issue in their brief. Accordingly, this 

court will not review those findings. 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).