of the clerk who was arrested and the events surrounding the arrest of her boss; and Wang’s failure to include the officials’ search of her home and their threat of a fine against her mother in her asylum application. The inconsistencies and omissions on which the IJ relied provide “specific, cogent reasons” that “bear a legitimate nexus” to the finding. See Secaida-Rosales, 331 F.3d at 307; see also Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.2004). The IJ’s adverse credibility finding is substantially supported by the record. Because Wang waived her right to challenge the IJ’s insufficiency of evidence determination by failing to brief it on appeal, see Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir.2005); LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), a review of that finding is unnecessary. For
holding that issues not raised in an initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned holding that issues not raised in an appellants initial brief are deemed abandoned holding that petitioner abandoned issues and claims not sufficiently raised in his brief holding that an issue is abandoned when not raised in an appellate brief holding an issue is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal if the argument is raised in a brief but not supported by authority