Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04015/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04015-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos Alberto Pool-Chan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4015

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Carlos Alberto Pool-Chan, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 19, 2006

Filed: July 18, 2006

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

LOKEN, Chief Judge.

Carlos Alberto Pool-Chan was arrested with fourteen other illegal aliens

traveling in a van on Interstate 80 in Cedar County, Iowa. He was carrying a bogus

social security card bearing a nine-digit social security number and the name Carlos

Pool. After a bench trial, Pool-Chan was convicted of possessing a counterfeit social

security card in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), which provides that any person who

knowingly possesses a document “prescribed by statute or regulation . . . as evidence

of authorized . . . employment in the United States, knowing it to be forged,

Appellate Case: 05-4015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2006 Entry ID: 2068422
1

The HONORABLE LINDA R. READE, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa. 

-2-

counterfeited, altered, or falsely made,” is guilty of a felony. The district court1

sentenced him to 187 days in prison, equal to time already served, and two years of

supervised release. Pool-Chan appeals, arguing as he did to the district court that

possession of an unsigned counterfeit social security card does not violate § 1546(a).

Reviewing this issue of statutory construction de novo, we affirm. See United States

v. Kirchoff, 387 F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). 

At trial, the government introduced the unsigned social security card and a

stipulation of facts reciting that Pool-Chan, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United

States unlawfully on March 30, 2005 to find work, after being voluntarily removed

to Mexico seven times in the previous five years. When arrested on April 5, PoolChan waived his Miranda rights and told the arresting agents that he bought the card

in Texas to use for employment purposes. Before resting, the government called

immigration special agent Eric Spalding who explained how he determined that the

social security card was counterfeit. Spalding also testified that this type of document

is used “to prove eligibility to work in the United States” and that he has seen an

unsigned social security card “accepted by an employer.” 

At the close of the evidence, Pool-Chan moved for judgment of acquittal on the

ground that an unsigned social security card is not evidence of authorized employment

within the meaning of § 1546(a). Pool-Chan argued that only a valid social security

card falls within the plain meaning of the term “authorized” in § 1546(a), and his

counterfeit card was not a valid card because a notation on the back declared: “This

card is invalid if not signed by the number holder unless health or age prevents

signature.” (The evidence at trial established that Pool-Chan is young and in good

health.) The district court denied the acquittal motion, concluding: 

Appellate Case: 05-4015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2006 Entry ID: 2068422
-3-

it is not a defense to 18 United States Code Section 1546(a) that the

social security card was not signed. Even an unsigned social security

card is the type of document prescribed by statute or regulation . . . as

evidence of authorized . . . employment in the United States.

The court then found that the government had proved all elements of the § 1546(a)

offense beyond a reasonable doubt. On appeal, Pool-Chan concedes that he

knowingly possessed a counterfeit social security card but argues that possession of

an unsigned card, even if otherwise counterfeit, does not violate § 1546(a). 

The plain meaning of the term “evidence of authorized . . . employment” in

§ 1546(a) becomes clear from a review of the statute’s history. This language was

added when Congress significantly expanded the reach of the statute in the

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”), Pub. L. 99-603, § 103(a)(2)-

(3), 100 Stat. 3380. See United States v. Ryan-Webster, 353 F.3d 353, 362-63 (4th

Cir. 2003). IRCA enacted a new section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8

U.S.C. § 1324a, which prohibited the employment of illegal aliens and required “that

employers verify the identity and eligibility of all new hires by examining specified

documents before they begin work.” Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535

U.S. 137, 148 (2002). At the same time, IRCA amended 18 U.S.C. § 1546 to “make[]

it a crime for an unauthorized alien to subvert the employer verification system by

tendering fraudulent documents.” Id. 

The employer verification system, including the specified categories of

documents to be verified, is found in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b). Before hiring an

individual, an employer must verify “that the individual is not an unauthorized alien

by examining (i) a document described in subparagraph (B), or (ii) a document

described in subparagraph (C) and a document described in subparagraph (D).” 8

U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(1)(A). Subparagraph (C), entitled “Documents evidencing

employment authorization,” expressly includes a work applicant’s “social security

account number card (other than such a card which specifies on the face that the

Appellate Case: 05-4015 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/18/2006 Entry ID: 2068422
-4-

issuance of the card does not authorize employment in the United States).”

§ 1324a(b)(1)(C). This inclusion, though it appears in a provision enforcing the

immigration laws, is logical because the Commissioner of Social Security is required

by statute to “take affirmative measures to assure” that social security account

numbers are only issued to aliens whose status permits them “to engage in

employment in the United States.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(B)(i). See United States v.

Gomes, 969 F.2d 1290, 1294 (1st Cir. 1992) (“a social security card [informs] those

who examine it that the bearer is eligible to work in the United States”). 

In this statutory regime, “evidence of authorized . . . employment” for purposes

of § 1546(a) plainly means documents establishing that a person is not an

unauthorized alien within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, that is, documents such

as a work applicant’s social security account number card that are specified in the

employer verification system, § 1324a(b)(1). The critical fact for a verifying

employer is whether the Social Security Administration has issued a social security

account number card, which means that the Commissioner has verified that the alien

may lawfully work in the United States. Whether the alien signed the card after it was

issued may affect its validity for other purposes. But signing is irrelevant to a

verifying employer and therefore irrelevant to whether an illegal alien subverts the

employer verification system by tendering a counterfeit or otherwise fraudulent card.

For these reasons, the district court correctly concluded that even an unsigned

social security card is a document “prescribed by statute or regulation . . . as evidence

of authorized . . . employment in the United States” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1546(a). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4015 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/18/2006 Entry ID: 2068422