Olga Martinez-Canales v. Loretta E. Lynch, No. 15-1610 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Smith, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Petitioner's unexhausted ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was not properly before the court; substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that petitioner failed to show past persecution in El Salvador or a well-founded fear of future persecution on a protected ground.
Download PDF
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of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: February 18, 2016 Filed: February 23, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.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 asylum and withholding of removal. In her supporting brief, Martinez-Canales raises an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, but this 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-
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.
