Case Name: Catherine N. GACHOKI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-06
Citations: 75 F. App'x 920
Docket Number: No. 03-1301
Parties: Catherine N. GACHOKI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 75
Pages: 920–921

Head Matter:
Catherine N. GACHOKI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 03-1301.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 15, 2003.
Decided Oct. 6, 2003.
Ronald D. Richey, Ronald D. Richey & Associates, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Senior Litigation, Timothy P. Mellmail, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Catherine N. Gachoki, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming the immigration judge's denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's decision and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Gachoki, No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 13, 2003); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3), 1208.16(b)(l)(i)(B), (c)(3)(ii) (2003) (providing that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture if internal relocation is a reasonable option). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.