PABLO VILLALBA-ORTEGA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-73134 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PABLO ABNER VILLALBA-ORTEGA, Petitioner, No. 13-73134 Agency No. A035-651-121 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. 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 * 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). 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. 2 13-73134
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
