Case Name: Marvin Ernesto MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-20
Citations: 654 F. App'x 267
Docket Number: No. 14-72858
Parties: Marvin Ernesto MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 654
Pages: 267–268

Head Matter:
Marvin Ernesto MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72858
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
June 20, 2016
Thomas J. Tarigo, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Marvin Ernesto Martinez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Dana Michelle Camilleri, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEA, WATFORD, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Marvin Ernesto Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
Apart from his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Martinez does not contest the agency's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT. We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez's ineffective assistance of counsel claim because, he did not exhaust it in the form of a motion to reopen before the BIA. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) ('We . require an alien who argues ineffective assistance of counsel to exhaust his administrative remedies by first presenting the issue to the BIA"); Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815-16 (9th Cir. 2007) (requiring administrative exhaustion of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim). Thus, we dismiss this claim and deny his related request to submit new evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 3643.