United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40565

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Ivis Orestes Irias-Romero, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:20-CR-1348-1

Before Jolly, Dennis, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge:

A jury found Ivis Orestes Irias-Romero guilty of transporting within 

the United States an alien who “has come to, entered, or remains in the 

United States in violation of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). On appeal, 

Irias-Romero challenges his conviction as based on insufficient evidence. For 

the following reasons, we affirm. 

I.

On the evening of November 14, 2020, a white pickup truck entered a 

primary inspection lane at the Border Patrol checkpoint near Sarita, Texas. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 21, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40565 Document: 00516904262 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 21-40565

2

Border Patrol Agent Derek Brickan was conducting inspections that night 

and noticed two people in the truck. 

At trial, Agent Brickan testified that he first asked the driver, IriasRomero, whether he was a United States citizen. Irias-Romero responded 

that he was a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Agent Brickan 

then posed the same question to Irias-Romero’s passenger, Nidia AlfaroCalero. She did not reply. Irias-Romero answered that the passenger was his 

wife and a United States citizen, and he gave Agent Brickan a marriage 

certificate. That certificate said that Irias-Romero was married to a woman 

named Cinthia Zarahi Corea-Gamez. 

After looking at the marriage certificate, Agent Brickan asked AlfaroCalero in Spanish about her citizenship. She said that she was from 

Honduras and lived in Houston. Agent Brickan asked Alfaro-Calero if she 

was legally present in the United States, and she said that she was not. Based 

on those statements, Agent Brickan arrested Irias-Romero and AlfaroCalero. 

Border Patrol Agent Luis Alfaro interviewed Irias-Romero after his 

arrest. The government entered an English translation of the transcribed 

interview into evidence, and Agent Alfaro testified about it. During the 

interview, Irias-Romero confirmed that his passenger’s name was Nidia 

Alfaro-Calero. Irias-Romero explained that he had met Alfaro-Calero on

Facebook and had known her for four years. 

On November 13, 2020, Alfaro-Calero contacted Irias-Romero to ask 

for a favor. She wanted a ride from Brownsville to Houston and gave IriasRomero the address of a house where he could pick her up. Irias-Romero 

agreed. He planned to help Alfaro-Calero find a place to stay when they got 

to Houston. 

Case: 21-40565 Document: 00516904262 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 21-40565

3

During the post-arrest interview, the agent asked Irias-Romero if he 

had known that Alfaro-Calero was “illegal,” and he replied that he had. He 

said that Alfaro-Calero had told him that she was “illegal.” Irias-Romero 

further explained that if he had known about the checkpoint, he would have 

refused to give Alfaro-Calero a ride. He said that he was married to the 

woman listed on the marriage certificate, Cinthia Zarahi Corea-Gamez, and 

that he gave Agent Brickan the certificate because of an “involuntary,” 

“nervous reaction.” But Irias-Romero also admitted that he told AlfaroCalero, “if a police officer stops us, tell them that you are my wife.” 

Alfaro-Calero testified as a Government witness. Speaking through 

an interpreter, she stated that in June or July of 2020, she decided to move 

from Honduras to the United States “[b]ecause of death threats from the 

maras.” She left Honduras on foot with a caravan of people, and eventually 

arrived in Mexico, where she was given a permit that allowed her to stay in 

the country for 90 days. Alfaro-Calero planned to use those 90 days to apply 

for a humanitarian visa from Mexico. However, she was kidnapped and sold 

to a man named “El Burro.” 

At trial, Alfaro-Calero testified that her captors forced her to cross 

into the United States three times. On the first two occasions, immigration 

officials apprehended her, and she was taken back to Mexico. But on her 

third crossing, immigration officials did not apprehend her. After entering 

the United States, she spent two days and nights in the brush with one of her 

captors, who sexually abused and beat her. Her captor eventually took her to 

a house, where she learned that El Burro was demanding a $10,000 ransom. 

Alfaro-Calero was able to get $1,000 from her mother and cousin, and El 

Burro let her go. She then contacted Irias-Romero to ask for his help. IriasRomero said “[t]hat he didn’t have money, but that he could come to get 

[her].” She told him to come to the house by 9 P.M. because she was worried 

that her kidnappers would harm her if she wasn’t gone by then. AlfaroCase: 21-40565 Document: 00516904262 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 21-40565

4

Calero testified that the kidnappers showed her a video depicting the torture 

and murder of a girl. Yet she did not ask Irias-Romero to call the police. 

After Irias-Romero picked up Alfaro-Calero, she told him about her 

kidnapping and that she wanted him to take her “[w]herever [she] could be 

far away from [those] people.” He said that he would take her to a hotel in 

Houston for several days and then “rent a place for [her] to live and that he 

was going to look for a job for [her].” Alfaro-Calero also testified that IriasRomero knew that she was in the United States illegally when he went to pick 

her up at the house. 

A grand jury charged Irias-Romero with violating 8 U.S.C. 

§§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II), and 1324(a)(1)(B)(ii). The onecount indictment alleged that Alfaro-Calero “was an alien who had come to, 

entered, and remained in the United States in violation of law,” and that 

Irias-Romero used a motor vehicle to “transport, move, attempt to transport, 

and attempt to move” her in furtherance of that violation of law. 

At the close of the Government’s case, Irias-Romero moved for a 

judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. IriasRomero argued that there was insufficient evidence that Alfaro-Calero had 

entered or remained in the United States in violation of law. The district 

court denied his motion. Irias-Romero did not testify or call any other 

witnesses in his defense. The jury then returned its verdict finding him guilty 

as charged in the indictment. 

The district court sentenced Irias-Romero to four months in prison, 

followed by two years of supervised release. 

Irias-Romero filed a timely notice of appeal. 

II.

Case: 21-40565 Document: 00516904262 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 21-40565

5

Irias-Romero raises a single issue on appeal: that the evidence is 

insufficient to sustain his conviction. Irias-Romero moved for a judgment of 

acquittal on that basis. 

“Where, as here, a defendant has timely moved for a judgment of 

acquittal, this court reviews challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de 

novo.” United States v. Nicholson, 961 F.3d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 2020). When 

assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, “we review the record to determine 

whether, considering the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light 

most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found 

the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United 

States v. Gibson, 875 F.3d 179, 185 (5th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). “This is a 

‘highly deferential’ task, one requiring us to accept all credibility choices and 

reasonable inferences the jury made to support its verdict.” United States v. 

Spalding, 894 F.3d 173, 181 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

Irias-Romero was convicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), which 

provides that any person who “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact 

that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation 

of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien 

within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in 

furtherance of such violation of law . . . shall be punished.” To convict IriasRomero of violating this statute, “the jury had to find beyond a reasonable 

doubt that (1) an alien illegally entered or remained in the United States; (2) 

[Irias-Romero] transported the alien within the United States intending to 

further that unlawful purpose; and (3) [Irias-Romero] knew or recklessly 

disregarded the fact that the alien was illegally in the United States.” United 

States v. Gaspar-Felipe, 4 F.4th 330, 341 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii)); United States v. Nolasco-Rosas, 286 F.3d 762, 765 (5th 

Cir. 2002)). Irias-Romero does not dispute the sufficiency of the jury 

instructions pertaining to those offense elements or available defenses.

Case: 21-40565 Document: 00516904262 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 21-40565

6

Irias-Romero argues that the Government failed to prove the first 

element of this offense because there was insufficient evidence from which a 

rational jury could find that Alfaro-Calero entered or remained in the country 

in violation of law. We disagree.

A rational jury could infer that Alfaro-Calero illegally entered or 

remained in the United States from the testimony confirming that she was 

illegally present in the country. When Agent Brickan asked Alfaro-Calero if 

she was illegally present, she answered yes. During Irias-Romero’s postarrest interview, Irias-Romero said that he heard from Alfaro-Calero that she 

was “illegal.” And Alfaro-Calero corroborated at trial that Irias-Romero 

knew that she was in the United States illegally when he went to pick her up. 

Drawing all inferences in favor of the Government, Gibson, 875 F.3d at 185, a 

jury could conclude that Alfaro-Calero had entered or remained in the 

country in violation of law, see 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1) (prohibiting aliens from 

“enter[ing] or attempt[ing] to enter the United States at any time or place 

other than as designated by immigration officers”); id. § 1326(a) (prohibiting, 

inter alia, an alien who has been “removed” from “[being] at any time found 

in[] the United States”); cf. United States v. Anderton, 901 F.3d 278, 285 (5th 

Cir. 2018) (holding that because “it is a civil offense” “for a removable alien 

to remain present in the United States,” “[a]liens who reside here without 

authorization are ‘in violation of law’ for purposes of Section 

1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (v)” (citation omitted)).1 

1 The immigration statute designates certain judicial or administrative records, 

other official records, and immigration officer testimony as “prima facie evidence that an 

alien . . . had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law” for 

purposes of Section 1324(a). 8 U.S.C. § 1324(b)(3). Irias-Romero argues that the 

Government failed to present such prima facie evidence at trial. But the statute does not 

limit the kinds of evidence admissible to prove that an alien illegally entered or remained in 

the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324(b)(3). A rational jury could infer a relevant violation 

of law from other types of evidence, including the testimony of a criminal defendant or 

Case: 21-40565 Document: 00516904262 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 21-40565

7

Irias-Romero contends that because Alfaro-Calero testified that she 

entered the United States against her will, she either did not violate the law 

in entering the United States or would have a meritorious duress defense to 

an illegal entry charge. But even if Alfaro-Calero’s kidnappers forced her to 

cross the border and held her captive, the jury heard sufficient evidence to 

find that Alfaro-Calero illegally entered or remained in the country. As we 

explained, Alfaro-Calero acknowledged that she was breaking the law by 

being in the United States. The jury was entitled to credit that evidence and 

give it greater weight than her testimony about her kidnapping. See United 

States v. Jordan, 945 F.3d 245, 256 (5th Cir. 2019). And notwithstanding 

Alfaro-Calero’s testimony that she did not intend to be in the United States,

evidence exists to support a contrary inference. Irias-Romero was driving

Alfaro-Calero to Houston to get a job instead of to a hospital or the police. 

Indeed, despite the abuse that Alfaro-Calero suffered, she never asked IriasRomero to contact law enforcement. Those circumstances surrounding 

Alfaro-Calero’s escape permit the inference that she intended to stay in the 

United States instead of returning to Mexico or Honduras. See also Anderton, 

901 F.3d at 285. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, 

United States v. Green, 47 F.4th 279, 290 (5th Cir. 2022), that evidence would 

permit a rational jury to find that Alfaro-Calero had violated the law within 

the meaning of Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). 

victim. Ordinarily, such a witness does not have to be an immigration expert or lawyer for 

her testimony to permit the inference that an alien’s conduct violated the law under Section 

1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). See also United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 438 (5th Cir. 2005) 

(finding evidence of transported aliens’ violation of law sufficient where, among other 

evidence, police officer testified that defendant tentatively agreed with officer’s statement 

that some transported aliens “probably ain’t legal”); United States v. Hernandez, 913 F.2d 

568, 570 (8th Cir. 1990) (finding evidence of transported aliens’ violation of law sufficient 

where aliens told defendant that they were undocumented and defendant helped aliens 

navigate around a checkpoint).

Case: 21-40565 Document: 00516904262 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 21-40565

8

Ultimately, Irias-Romero presented his theory of the case to the jury, 

and the jury rejected it. In closing, defense counsel argued that Alfaro-Calero 

was kidnapped and that Irias-Romero’s “only plan was to get her out of 

harm’s way.”2 Yet the jury returned a guilty verdict. Because that verdict 

was based on sufficient evidence, we will not disturb it on appeal. 

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court.

2 A true Good Samaritan may be able to argue that scienter is lacking if that person 

acts out of necessity to save an alien from death or serious bodily injury rather than to 

further the alien’s unlawful presence in the United States. Cf. United States v. Khalil, 857 

F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 2017) (finding evidence insufficient to support conviction for 

transporting alien where defendant’s conduct was intended to terminate alien’s presence 

in United States); United States v. Dominguez, 661 F.3d 1051, 1061–62 (11th Cir. 2011) 

(finding evidence insufficient to support conviction for transporting aliens where defendant 

took aliens to immigration attorney); United States v. Stonefish, 402 F.3d 691, 697 (6th Cir. 

2005) (rejecting defendant’s argument that he transported aliens “as a humanitarian 

gesture”). 

Case: 21-40565 Document: 00516904262 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/21/2023