Walter Danilo Cabrera v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER DANILO CABRERA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71805
Agency No. A070-940-838
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Walter Danilo Cabrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-71805
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cabrera’s motion to reopen
based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where he did not provide sufficient
evidence to establish that prior counsel had been retained to file a petition for
review on his behalf. See Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2011)
(motion to reopen premised on ineffective assistance of counsel must show that
counsel’s performance was deficient and resulted in prejudice). In so concluding,
we do not consider the extra-record information and evidence included with
Cabrera’s opening brief because the court’s review is normally limited to the
administrative record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365,
371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --