Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01610/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01610-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Olga Martinez-Canales
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1610

___________________________

Olga Martinez-Canales

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: February 18, 2016

Filed: February 23, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Salvadoran citizen Olga Martinez-Canales petitions for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed her appeal from the decision of

an immigration judge denying asylumand withholding of removal. In her supporting

brief, Martinez-Canales raises an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, but this

Appellate Case: 15-1610 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2016 Entry ID: 4369913 
administratively unexhausted claim is not properly before us. See Ateka v. Ashcroft,

384 F.3d 954, 957 (8th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion of administrative remedies).

As for the asylum and withholding-of-removal claims, we conclude that

substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the finding that MartinezCanales failed to show past persecution in El Salvador, or a well-founded fear of

future persecution there, due to one of the five protected grounds: race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See De

Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 379-81 (8th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we

deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1610 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2016 Entry ID: 4369913