Matthew Babb v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for stay pending appeal [999196157-2] Originating case number: A036-360-098. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999207793]. Mailed to: Matthew Babb. [13-1973]

Appeal: 13-1973

Doc: 18

Filed: 10/03/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1973

MATTHEW MILES BABB,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

September 23, 2013

Decided:

October 3, 2013

Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Miles Babb, Petitioner Pro Se. David H. Wetmore, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1973

Doc: 18

Filed: 10/03/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

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
informal

brief

Babb
to

the

fails

to

raise

agency’s

any

denial

challenges

of

his

request

his

in

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.
2013).

We deny Babb’s pending motion for stay of removal as

moot.
legal
before

See In re: Babb (B.I.A. July 2,

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
PETITION DENIED
2