United States v. Chahla: Convictions for Unlawfully Procuring Naturalization Upheld Where Defendants Made False Statements on Application for Lawful Permanent Resident Status and Later Applied for Citizenship Based on that Status

United States v. Chahla, No. 13-12717, from MDFla

 

Circuit Judge Martin joined by Senior Circuit Judge Dubina and Senior District Judge Duffy (D.S.C.)

 

Summary:  The three defendants were brothers from Syria who were charged with fraudulently marrying three women for the purpose of gaining a more favorable immigration status. 

 

The panel first reviewed the defendants’ challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.  The brothers argued that the evidence showed multiple separate conspiracies with respect to the marriage of each brother, but the panel concluded that there was significant evidence of an overall conspiracy with the common goal of faking marriages to support applications for legal immigration status.

 

The defendants also argued that their act of making false statements on their applications to become lawful permanent residents could not support their convictions for unlawful procurement of naturalization and citizenship under 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a).  That section criminalizes “knowingly procur[ing] or attempt[ing] to procure, contrary to law, the naturalization of any person.” According to the defendants, this statute criminalizes fraudulent procurement of naturalization but not false statements made in applications to adjust to lawful permanent residents because a person could become a lawful permanent resident and yet never become a citizen.

 

The panel rejected this argument. Becoming a lawful permanent resident was a statutory prerequisite to becoming a naturalized citizen.  Since there was evidence that the defendants became lawful permanent residents through fraudulent marriages, their attempt to become naturalized citizens was contrary to law to the extent it was based on their fraudulently obtained status as lawful permanent residents.  However, the panel also recognized that in a case with different facts, there may not be a sufficient nexus between statements made to become a lawful permanent resident and an attempt to naturalize which would support a conviction under this section. 

 

The panel briefly rejected several other challenges and then affirmed the defendant’s convictions.

 

Note: The challenge to the applicability of the procurement of naturalization contrary to law was one of first impression because the typical statute for marriage fraud is 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c).  Here, the government could not use this statute because its five year statute of limitations had run.