Salvadoran citizen Olga Martinez-Ca-nales 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 pi’operly 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 Martinez-Canales 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.