UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1737

SYED ASHAIR ALI,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: December 16, 2011 Decided: January 4, 2012

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony 

West, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant 

Director, Jennifer Paisner Williams, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Syed Ashair Ali, a native and citizen of Pakistan, 

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 

from removal and withholding under the Convention Against 

Torture (“CAT”). Because Ali has forfeited review of the 

adverse credibility finding and the denial of relief under the 

CAT, we deny the petition for review.

Ali’s applications for asylum and withholding from 

removal were denied because Ali was found to be not credible and 

because he failed to submit reasonably available corroborative 

evidence. In his opening brief, Ali fails to challenge the 

adverse credibility finding, focusing instead on the finding 

that he lacked sufficient corroborative evidence. Under Rule 28 

of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, “the argument

[section of the brief] . . . must contain . . . appellant’s 

contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the 

authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant 

relies.” Furthermore, the “[f]ailure to comply with the 

specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular 

claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.” Edwards v. 

City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999); see 

also Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004)
3

(failure to challenge the denial of relief under the CAT results 

in abandonment of that challenge). 

Because Ali does not challenge the adverse credibility 

finding with citations to authorities or parts of the record, it 

is waived and will not be reviewed by this court. Similarly, 

the denial of relief under the CAT is also waived for the same 

reason. We have reviewed the independent evidence and conclude 

that the record does not compel a different result. See INS v. 

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992) (This court will 

reverse the Board only if “the evidence . . . presented was so 

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the 

requisite fear of persecution.”). 

Because Ali has waived review of the adverse 

credibility finding and our review of the record does not compel

us to reach a different result, 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