Case Name: Therese VANGUERE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-13
Citations: 474 F. App'x 158
Docket Number: No. 12-1122
Parties: Therese VANGUERE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 158–159

Head Matter:
Therese VANGUERE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-1122.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 28, 2012.
Decided: July 13, 2012.
Therese Vanguere, Petitioner Pro Se. Todd J. Cochran, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Therese Vanguere, a native and citizen of the Central African Republic, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("Board") order denying her motion to reopen immigration proceedings. In her pro se pleadings in this court, Vanguere has failed to raise any arguments responsive to the Board's reasoning for denying her motion to reopen. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (directing appealing parties to present specific arguments in an informal brief and stating that this court's review on appeal is limited to the issues raised in the informal brief); Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir.2001) (stating failure to raise an issue in an opening brief results in abandonment of that issue). We therefore conclude that Vanguere has forfeited appellate review of the sole order that is the subject of this petition for review. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Vanguere (B.I.A. Dec. 28, 2011). We further deny the pending motion for the appointment of counsel. 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.