Jose Manuel Machorro-Zamora v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MANUEL MACHORRO-ZAMORA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70801
Agency No. A200-947-704
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Manuel Machorro-Zamora, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen and review de novo claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed
* 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
NOV 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-70801
v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening based on
ineffective assistance of counsel. Machorro-Zamora did not show his former
attorney failed to perform with sufficient competence by declining to file an
application for cancellation of removal, where Machorro-Zamora was ineligible for
that relief at the time. See id. at 793 (to demonstrate ineffective assistance of
counsel, a petitioner must show counsel failed to perform with sufficient
competence); Torres-Chavez v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2009)
(declining to find ineffective assistance where counsel made a tactical decision;
court must evaluate counsel’s decisions from counsel’s perspective at the time).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --