United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3179

___________________________

Chaudhry Ashraf

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: November 16, 2015

 Filed: April 22, 2016

____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

Chaudhry Ashraf, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of a

decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from

an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him removable as an alien who was

convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years of his

admission to the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). We deny the

petition for review. 
I.

Ashraf was born in Pakistan and came to the United States in the mid-1990s. 

On August 22, 1999, Ashraf married Rhonda Sperry, a United States citizen. He

received a conditional green card based on that marriage on September 8, 2000,

which is considered his date of admission to the United States. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1186a(a)(1). On July 13, 2002, Ashraf and Sperry signed and later submitted a

Petition to Remove the Conditions on Residence (“Form I-751”) to the former

Immigration and Naturalization Service, now the Department of Homeland Security

(“DHS”). Ashraf and Sperry divorced on October 28, 2004. It is undisputed that

Ashraf’s marriage to Sperry was a “sham marriage.”

On September 24, 2007, the government charged Ashraf with conspiracy to

commit marriage fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 in the United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri. The criminal information charged Ashraf

with knowingly and intentionally conspiring with other individuals to enter into

marriages for the purpose of evading immigration laws, to submit false Petitions for

Alien Relative visas (“I-130”), and to submit false Form I-751 petitions. Ashraf

conspired with at least four other Pakistanis in formulating the plan to enter into sham

marriages with United States citizens for those unlawful immigration purposes. 

Ashraf pled guilty to conspiracy to commit marriage fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 371, specifically admitting that “[b]etween August 22, 1999 and October 28, 2004,

in Kansas City, Missouri, [Ashraf] entered into an agreement with other Pakistani

nationals and [Sperry] to become married for the purpose of evading the immigration

laws.” Pursuant to the plea agreement, Ashraf was convicted of the offense of

conspiracy to commit marriage fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1325(c) and sentenced to two years probation. The judgment indicated that

Ashraf’s offense concluded on July 13, 2002.

-2-
On April 18, 2011, Ashraf was charged with removability under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) as an alien who has been convicted of a crime involving moral

turpitude committed within five years after his admission. He was also charged with

removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(G)(ii) as an alien who procured his visa by

fraud. When the IJ heard his case, the sole issue was whether Ashraf was removable

under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), a ground of removability for which there is no

waiver available under the circumstances of Ashraf’s case. Ashraf did not dispute

that conspiracy to commit marriage fraud constituted a crime involving moral

turpitude. His sole argument was that the crime was not committed within five years

after his admission to the United States.

The IJ issued an oral decision, concluding Ashraf’s conspiracy to commit

marriage fraud occurred within five years after his admission on September 8, 2000,

thus Ashraf was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). Specifically, the IJ

concluded that it was not only Ashraf’s marriage on August 22, 1999, but also his

knowing and intentional conspiracy with other people to enter intomarriagesto evade

immigration laws spanning from August 22, 1999 through October 28, 2004, that led

to his guilty plea. The IJ also found that Ashraf became a permanent resident only

after the conditions on his lawful permanent resident status were removed pursuant

to his I-751 petition signed on July 13, 2002. Ashraf appealed the IJ’s decision to the

BIA. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Ashraf’s offense occurred within

five years of his admission as a conditional lawful permanent resident and that Ashraf

was removable as charged. Ashraf then filed this review petition.

II.

“In an appeal from the BIA, we review the BIA’s fact-findings for substantial

evidence, and we review its legal determinations, as well as any constitutional

challenges, de novo.” Banat v. Holder, 557 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing

Ntangsi v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 1007, 1011-12 (8th Cir. 2007)). Where the BIA adopts

-3-
the reasoning of the IJ, this Court reviews the IJ’s decision as well. Id. Ashraf does

not deny that his 2008 conviction for conspiracy to commit marriage fraud in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c) constitutes a crime involving

moral turpitude. Rather, Ashraf argues the BIA erred in finding the conspiracy to

commit marriage fraud extended to the time he filed the I-751 petition.

Ashraf contends his crime was completed on the date of his marriage, August

22, 1999, which was prior to his admission to the United States. The government

contendsthe conspiracy continues through the date of the last overt act in furtherance

of the conspiracy and that the last overt act in this case occurred on July 13, 2002,

when Ashraf submitted the I-751 petition. Therefore, the government assertsthe BIA

correctly concluded that the conspiracy continued through July 13, 2002, which is

within five years of Ashraf’s admission to the United States on September 8, 2000.

Essentially, Ashraf argues the marriage wasthe last overt act of the conspiracy

to commit marriage fraud. In support of this contention, Ashraf relies upon the

Eleventh Circuit case United States v. Rojas, 718 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2013). In

Rojas, the Eleventh Circuit held the crime of marriage fraud, under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1325(c), is completed on the date the parties enter into the marriage. 718 F.3d at

1320. Ashraf argues that, based on Rojas, marriage fraud cannot be considered a

continuing offense and that any actions taken after the date of the marriage are

“merely circumstantial evidence of the unlawful purpose underlying the reason for

getting married,” so these actions do not further the actual crime of marriage fraud. 

Finally, Ashraf claims that he was not part of a larger conspiracy to commit marriage

fraud that could possibly extend the relevant dates of the conspiracy. 

Rojas has no bearing on the present case because it involved only the crime of

marriage fraud under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c), while Ashraf pleaded guilty to the entirely

separate crime of conspiracy to commit marriage fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 371. It is wellsettled that conspiracy is a continuing offense that continues through

-4-
the last overt act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. See United States v.

Bennett, 765 F.3d, 887, 895 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Farmer, 73 F.3d 836,

841 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Garfinkel, 29 F.3d 1253, 1259-60 (8th Cir.

1994). We therefore turn to the issue of what actions taken by Ashraf constituted

overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy as set forth in the Indictment. The First

Circuit recently considered a similar case in which a defendant was convicted of

conspiracy to defraud the United States by participating in a sham marriage to secure

a change in immigration status for her spouse. United States v. Stewart, 744 F.3d 17,

18 (1st Cir. 2014). Reasoning that the Form I-751 “was a necessary step in achieving

the conspiratorial objective of helping [the noncitizen] acquire an immigration status

to which he would not otherwise have been entitled,” the First Circuit explicitly

found that the defendant’s submission of the I-751 petition was an overt act in

furtherance of the conspiracy. Id. at 23. 

We find the First Circuit’s reasoning persuasive and hold that Ashraf’s

submission of the I-751 petition constituted an overt act in furtherance of his

conspiracy to commit marriage fraud, thereby extending his conspiracy crime to a

date within five years of his admission to the United States. See Bennett, 765 F.3d

at 895 (reiterating that the limitations period for a conspiracy charge begins to run

from the last overt act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy). The

conspiratorial objective was not achieved on the date of the marriage, August 22,

1999, because the objective of the conspiracy was not to marry a United States

citizen. Rather, the objective of the criminal conspiracy, as identified in the criminal

information to which Ashraf voluntarily pled guilty, was for “Pakistani nationals to

fraudulently establish a legal means through their marriages in which to adjust their

status from Pakistani nationals to lawful permanent residents of the United States.” 

In order to adjust his statusto that of a lawful permanent resident of the United States,

Ashraf wasrequired to file a joint petition with Sperry attesting that the marriage was

“not entered into for the purpose of procuring an alien’s admission as an immigrant.” 

8 U.S.C. §§ 1186a(c)(1)(A), (d)(1)(A)(i)(III). Without Ashraf’s submission of such

-5-
a petition, his status as a permanent resident would have been terminated, and he

would have been subject to removal from the United States. The petition was

necessary to become a lawful permanent resident of the United States and was

therefore a necessary overt act in furtherance of Ashraf’s conspiracy to adjust his

statusthrough the use of a shammarriage. Ashraf’s crime wastherefore not complete

until July 13, 2002, the date Ashraf signed the petition, which is within five years of

September 8, 2000, his date of admission to the United States.

III.

Accordingly, we uphold the BIA’s finding that Ashraf is removable under

8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) as an alien who committed a crime involving moral

turpitude within five years of his admission to the United States.

______________________________

-6-