YVES RONALD MARC, AKA Robert Queen, AKA Ronald Smith v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YVES RONALD MARC, AKA Robert
Queen, AKA Ronald Smith,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73283
Agency No. A035-157-142
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Yves Ronald Marc, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Marc’s request
for oral argument is denied.
FILED
MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73283
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s particularly
serious crime determinations. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077
(9th Cir. 2015). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining Marc’s conviction for
conspiracy to illegally acquire firearms under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 922(a)(6),
924(a)(1)(A) was a particularly serious crime barring him from eligibility for
withholding of removal, where it applied the appropriate factors to weigh the
seriousness of the crime in a case-specific inquiry. See Avendano-Hernandez, 800
F.3d at 1077 (The court’s review “is limited to ensuring that the agency relied on
the appropriate factors and proper evidence to reach [its] conclusion.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to Marc’s contention, the BIA did not
misconstrue his conviction as involving the sale of firearms, where, in its
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the conviction, it noted that the
ultimate purpose of the scheme was to sell the weapons.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination, where Marc’s testimony relating to his claim of past harm
conflicted with documentary evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1046-48 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination supported under the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73283
totality of the circumstances). The record does not support Marc’s contentions that
the agency ignored evidence or arguments, or that it failed to provide sufficient
reasoning. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
Because the credibility determination is supported, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, where Marc failed to show it was more
likely than not that he would be tortured in Haiti. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.18(a)(1),
208.16(c)(2). We reject Marc’s contention that our holding in Ridore v. Holder,
696 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2012), requires us to conclude otherwise.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --