Case Name: Santa Esperanza Villanueva GUERRERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-26
Citations: 585 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: No. 14-1744
Parties: Santa Esperanza Villanueva GUERRERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 299–299

Head Matter:
Santa Esperanza Villanueva GUERRERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-1744.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 14, 2014.
Decided Nov. 26, 2014.
Santa Esperanza Villanueva Guerrero, Petitioner Pro Se. Michael Christopher Heyse, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
. Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Santa Esperanza Villanueva Guerrero, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge's order finding her removable. We deny the petition for review.
In her pro se informal brief, Guerrero contends her counsel was ineffective and that her removal would be an extreme hardship to her children. Because she does not challenge the Board's conclusion that she was removable, the issue is waived. See 4th Cir. R. 84(b). Guerrero's issues in her informal brief were not raised on appeal to the Board. Because she failed to exhaust the issues, we are without jurisdiction to review them. See Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n. 3 (4th Cir.2004).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.