Pablo Abner Villalba-Ortega v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PABLO ABNER VILLALBA-ORTEGA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73134
Agency No. A035-651-121
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Pablo Abner Villalba-Ortega, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
FILED
NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

constitutional claims and questions of law. Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198
(9th Cir. 2012) (order). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of
cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Vilchez, 682
F.3d at 1198. Villalba-Ortega’s contentions that the agency applied the incorrect
standard in evaluating his claim for cancellation and failed to consider all of the
evidence are not supported by the record.
Villalba-Ortega has not established prejudice from alleged ineffective
assistance by his former attorney, where he has not demonstrated how additional
testimony or different conduct by his attorney may have affected the outcome. See
U.S. v. Lopez-Chavez, 757 F.3d 1033, 1041 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To establish
ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings in violation of the
right to due process, a petitioner must show (1) that ‘the proceeding was so
fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his
case,’ and (2) prejudice.”).
Lastly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Villalba-Ortega’s unexhausted
contentions regarding voluntary departure. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071,
1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
13-73134 2

-- 2 of 2 --