
    Pablo Abner VILLALBA-ORTEGA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73134.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 25, 2015.
    Scott Daniel McVarish, Immigration Law Office of Los Angeles, Culver City, CA, for Petitioner.
    Before: TÁSHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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 Tija-ni v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     