Case Name: Gbogou GBOUKROU; Delphine Ollochi Achi, Petitioners, 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: 2003-10-15
Citations: 77 F. App'x 687
Docket Number: No. 03-1300
Parties: Gbogou GBOUKROU; Delphine Ollochi Achi, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 77
Pages: 687–688

Head Matter:
Gbogou GBOUKROU; Delphine Ollochi Achi, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 03-1300.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 23, 2003.
Decided Oct. 15, 2003.
Linda Hanten, Harrigan & Hanten, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas M. Bondy, Mark S. Davies, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Gbogou Gboukrou and Delphine Ollochi Achi, natives and citizens of the Ivory Coast, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of relief from deporta tion. As discussed below, we deny the petition for review.
Petitioners first contend that the IJ erred in finding that Gboukrou failed to qualify for withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the record and the IJ's decision, which was designated by the Board as the final agency determination, and find that substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that Petitioners did not qualify for this relief based on Gboukrou's claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1994); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(A) (2003); Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984).
Petitioners next ask that this case be remanded for the taking of new evidence on country conditions in the Ivory Coast. We find that we are barred by the transitional rules applicable here from effecting such a remand. See IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(B). Finally, we reject Petitioners' challenges to the Board's decision to affirm the decision of the IJ without opinion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7) (2003).
We accordingly deny the petition for review. 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.
. Achi is Gboukrou's spouse and seeks relief based on his claim.
. We note that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub.L. No. 104-128, 110 Stat. 3009, effective April 1, 1997. Because this case was in transition at the time the IIRIRA was passed, § 1105a(a)(4) is applicable here under the terms of the transitional rules contained in § 309(c) of the IIRIRA.