Case Name: Matthew Miles BABB, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-03
Citations: 541 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 13-1973
Parties: Matthew Miles BABB, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 541
Pages: 278–278

Head Matter:
Matthew Miles BABB, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-1973.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 23, 2013.
Decided: Oct. 3, 2013.
Matthew Miles Babb, Petitioner Pro Se. David H. Wetmore, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Miles Babb, a native and citizen of Guyana, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture.
Because Babb fails to raise any challenges in his informal brief to the agency's denial of his request for deferral of removal, we find that he has failed to preserve any issues for review. 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); cf. Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir.2009) (limiting appellate review to arguments raised in the brief in accordance with Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A)).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Babb (B.I.A. July 2, 2013). We deny Babb's pending motion for stay of removal as moot. 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.