# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 31 79

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ch au dh ry Ash raf

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Lore tt a E. Ly

nc h, At to rn ey

Gene ral of Un it ed Sta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 16 , 20 15
Fil ed : Ap ril 22 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, GRUEND ER, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

C h a u d h ry Ash raf, a na ti ve an d ci ti zen of Pak is ta n, pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of a
de ci si on by t he Bo ard of I mm i g r at io n App eal s (“ BIA”) di sm is si ng hi s ap pe al fro m

an im m ig rat io n jud ge ’s ( “ IJ ”) de ci si on fi n d i n g h i m rem ov ab le as an al ie n who was

co nv ic te d of a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al tu rp it ud e co m m it te d w it hi n fiv e y ears of hi s
ad m is si on to th e Uni te d St at es un de r 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 2) (A)(i ). We de ny th e

pe ti ti on for rev ie w.I.

Ash raf was bor n in Pak is ta n a nd cam e to th e Uni te d S ta te s i n t he m id -1 99 0s

. On Aug us t 22

, 19 99

, Ash raf m a r r i ed Rh on da Sp erry, a Uni te d St at es ci ti zen

. He

rece iv ed a co nd it io na l gr een card ba se d on t h a t m arri ag e on Sep te m be r 8, 20 00

, whi ch is c o n s i d e red hi s da te of ad m is si on to th e Uni te d St at es

. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 11 86 a(a) (1 ). On Ju ly 13

, 20 02

, Ash raf an d Sp erry si gn ed an d la te r su bm it te d a

Pet it io n to Rem ov e th e Co nd it io n s o n R e s i de nc e (“ Fo rm I-7 51 ”) to th e fo rm er

Im m ig rat io n an d Natu ral iz at io n Serv ic e, no w th e Dep art m en t of Hom el an d Secu rit y (“ DHS”). Ash raf an d Sp erry di vo rced on Octo be r 2 8

, 20 04

. It is un di sp ut ed th at

Ash raf’s m arri ag e to Sp erry was a “ sh am m arri ag e.”

On Sep te m

be r 24

, 20 07

, th e go ve rn m en t ch arg ed Ash raf wit h co ns pi racy to

co m m it m arri ag e fra ud in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 37 1 in th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t

Co ur t fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri. The cri m in al in fo rm at io n ch arg ed Ash raf

wit h kn owi ng ly an d in te nt io na ll y co n s p i r i n g wit h ot he r in di vi du al s to en te r in to

m arri ag es fo r th e pu rp os e of ev ad in g im m ig rat io n la ws, to su bm it fal se Pet it io ns fo r

Ali en Rel at iv e vi sa s (“ I-1 30 ”), an d to su bm it fal se Fo rm I-7 51 pe ti ti on s. Ash raf

co ns pi red wit h at le as t fo ur ot he r Pak is ta ni s in fo rm ul at in g th e pl an to en te r in to sh am

m arri ag es wit h Uni te d St at es ci ti ze n s f o r th os e un la wfu l im m ig rat io n pu rp os es

. Ash raf pl ed gu il ty to co ns pi racy to co m m it m arri ag e frau d in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.
§ 37 1, sp eci fic al ly ad m it ti ng th at “ [b ]etween Aug us t 22

, 19 99 an d Octo be r 28

, 20 04

, in Kan sa s Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri, [Ash raf] en te red in to an a g r e e men t wit h ot he r Pak is ta ni

na ti on al s an d [Sp erry] to be co m e m arri ed fo r th e pu rp os e of ev ad in g th e im m ig rat io n

la ws.” Pu rs ua nt to th e pl ea ag r eem en t, Ash raf was co nv ic te d of th e of fen se of

c o n s p i r acy to co m

m it m arri ag e frau d in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 37 1 an d 8 U.S

. C

. § 13 25 (c) an d se nt en ced to two y ears pr ob at io n. The jud gm en t in di cat ed th at

Ash raf’s o ffen se co nc lu de d o n J ul y 13 , 20 02

.

-2

-On Apr il 18

, 20 11

, Ash raf was ch arg ed wit h rem ov ab i l it y un de r 8 U.S.C.

§ 12 27 (a)( 2) (A)(i ) as an al ie n who ha s be e n c o nv ic te d of a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al

tu rp it ud e co m

m it te d wit hi n fiv e y ears aft er hi s ad m is si on

. He was al so ch arg ed wit h

rem ov ab il it y un de r 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 1) (G)(i i) as an al ie n who pr oc ur ed hi s vi sa by

frau d. W he n th e IJ he ard hi s cas e, th e so le is su e was whe th er Ash raf was rem ov ab le

un de r 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 2) (A)(i ), a gr ou nd of rem ov ab il it y fo r whi ch th ere is no
waiv er av ai la bl e un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of Ash raf’s cas e. Ash raf di d no t di sp ut e

t h a t co ns pi racy to co m

m it m arri ag e frau d co ns ti tu te d a cri m e in vo lv in g m or a l

tu rp it ud e. His so le arg um en t was th at th e cri m e was no t co m m it te d wit hi n fiv e y ears

aft er h is ad m is si on to th e Uni te d S ta te s.

The IJ is su ed an or al de ci si on , co nc lu di ng Ash raf’s co ns pi racy to co m m it

m arri ag e frau d oc cu rred wit hi n fiv e y ears aft er hi s ad m is si on on Sep te m be r 8, 20 00

, th us As hr af was rem ov ab le un de r 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 2) (A)(i ). Sp eci fic al ly, th e IJ

co nc lu de d th at it was no t on ly Ash raf’s m arri ag e on Aug us t 2 2

, 19 99

, bu t al so hi s

kn owi ng an d in te nt io na l co ns pi racy wit h ot he r pe ople to en te r in to m arri ag es to ev ad e

im m ig rat io n la ws sp an ni ng fro m Aug us t 22

, 19 99 th ro ug h Octo be r 28

, 20 04

, th at le d

to hi s gu il ty p le a. The IJ al so fo un d th at Ash raf be cam e a pe rm an e n t r e s i d e nt on ly

aft er the co nd it io ns on hi s l awfu l p erm an en t re si de nt st at us were rem ov ed pu rs ua nt

to hi s I-7 51 pe ti ti on si gn ed on Ju ly 13

, 20 02

. Ash raf ap pe al ed th e IJ ’s de ci si on to th e

BIA. The BIA affi rm ed th e IJ ’s de te rm in at io n th at Ash raf’s of fen se oc cu rred wit hi n
fiv e y ears of hi s ad m is si on as a co nd it io na l la wfu l pe rm an en t res id en t an d th at Ash raf

was rem ov ab le as c ha rg ed . Ash raf t he n fi le d t hi s re vi ew pe ti ti on

.

II.

“ In an ap pe al fro m th e BIA, we rev ie w th e BIA’s fact -fi nd in gs fo r su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce, an d we rev ie w it s le ga l de te rm in at io ns , as well as an y co ns ti tu ti on al

ch al le ng es , de no vo .” Ban at v. Hol de r, 55 7 F.3 d 88 6, 88 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ci ti ng

Ntan gs i v. Gon zal es , 47 5 F.3 d 10 07

, 10 11 -1 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )). W he re th e BIA ad op ts

-3

-th e reas on in g of th e IJ

, th is Co ur t rev ie ws th e IJ ’s de ci si on as well

. Id

. Ash raf do es

no t de ny th at hi s 20 08 co nv ic ti on fo r co ns pi racy to co m m it m arri ag e frau d in

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 37 1 an d 8 U

. S

. C

. § 13 25 (c) co ns ti tu te s a cri m e in vo lv in g

m or al tu rp it ud e. Rat he r, Ash raf arg ue s th e BIA erre d in fin di ng th e co ns pi racy to

co m m it m arri ag e fra ud ex te nd ed to th e ti m e h e fi le d t he I-7 51 pe ti ti on

.

Ash raf co nt en ds hi s cri m e was co m pl et ed on th e da te of hi s m arri ag e, Aug us t

22

, 19 99

, whi ch was pr io r to hi s ad m is si on to th e Uni te d St at es

. The go ve rn m en t

co nt en ds th e co ns pi racy co nt in ue s th ro ug h th e da te of th e la st ov ert act in fu rth eran ce

of th e co ns pi racy an d th at th e la st ov ert ac t in th is cas e oc cu rred on Ju ly 13

, 20 02

, whe n Ash raf su bm it te d th e I-7 51 pe ti ti on

. The refo re, th e go ve rn m en t as se rts th e BIA

co rrec tl y co nc lu de d th at th e co n s p ira cy co nt in ue d th ro ug h Ju ly 13

, 20 02

, whi ch is

wit hi n fi ve y ears of As hr af’s ad m is si on to th e Uni te d S ta te s o n S ep te m be r 8, 2 00 0.

Ess en ti al ly, Ash raf arg ue s th e m arri ag e was th e la st ov ert act of th e co ns pi racy

to co m m it m arri ag e frau d. In su pp or t of th is co nt en ti on , Ash raf rel ie s up on th e

El e v e nt h Ci rcu it cas e Uni te d St at es v. Ro jas, 71 8 F.3 d 13 17 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 13 ). I n

Ro jas, th e Elev en th Ci rcu it he ld th e cri m e of m arri ag e frau d, un de r 8 U.S.C.
§ 13 25 (c), is co m

pl et ed on th e da te th e pa rti es en te r in to th e m arri ag e. 71 8 F.3 d at

1 3 20

. Ash raf arg ue s th at

, ba se d on Ro jas, m arri ag e frau d can no t be co ns id ered a

co nt in ui ng o f

f en se an d th at an y act io ns ta ke n aft er th e da te of th e m arri ag e are

“ m erel y ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce of th e un l a w f ul pu rp os e un de rlyin g th e reas on fo r

ge tt in g m arri ed ,” so th es e act io ns do no t fu rth er t he act ua l cr im e o f m arri ag e fra ud

. Fi na ll y , Ash raf cl ai m s th at he was no t pa rt of a la rg er co ns pi racy to co m m it m arri ag e

frau d t ha t co ul d p os si bl y

ex te nd th e rel ev an t d at es of t he co ns pi racy.

Ro jas ha s no be ari ng on th e pr es en t cas e be cau se it in vo lv ed on ly th e cri m e of

m arri ag e frau d un de r 8 U.S.C. § 13 25 (c), whi le Ash raf pl ead ed gu il ty to th e en ti rel y

se pa rat e cri m e of co ns pi racy to co m m it m arri ag e frau d in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.
§ 37 1. It is well se tt le d th at co ns pi racy is a co nt in ui ng of fen se th at co nt in ue s th ro ug h

-4

-th e la st ov ert act co m m it te d in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy. See Uni te d St at es v.

Ben ne t t

, 76 5 F.3 d, 88 7, 89 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ); Uni te d St at es v. Farm er, 73 F.3 d 83 6,

84 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ); Uni te d St at es v. Garfi nk el

, 29 F.3 d 12 53

, 12 59 -6 0 (8 th Ci r.

19 94 ). W e th eref

or e t u rn to th e is su e of wha t act io ns ta ke n by Ash raf co ns ti tu te d

ov ert act s in fu r t h eran ce of th e co ns pi racy as se t fo rth in th e In di ct m en t. The Fi rs t

Ci rcu i t r e cen tl y co ns id ered a si m il ar cas e in whi ch a de fen da nt was co nv ic te d of

co ns pi racy to de frau d th e Uni te d St at es by pa rti ci pa ti ng in a sh am m arri ag e to se cu re

a ch an ge in im m ig rat io n st at us fo r he r sp ou se

. Uni te d St at es v. St ewart

, 74 4 F.3 d 17

, 18 (1 st Ci r. 20 14 ). Rea so ni ng th at th e Fo rm I-7 51 “ was a ne ces sa ry st ep in ach ie vi ng

th e co ns pi rat or ia l ob

jecti ve of he lp in g [th e no nc it iz en ] acq ui re an im m ig rat io n st at us

to whi ch he wou ld no t o t h e r w is e ha ve be en en ti tl ed ,” th e Fi rs t Ci rcu it ex pl ic it ly

fo un d th at th e de fen da nt ’s su bmi s s i o n of th e I-7 51 pe ti ti on was an ov ert act in

fu rth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy. Id . at 2 3.

W e fin d th e F i rs t Ci rcu it ’s reas on in g pe rs ua si ve an d ho ld th at Ash raf’s

su bmi s s i o n of th e I-7 51 pe ti ti on co ns ti tu te d an ov ert act in fu rth eran ce of hi s

co ns pi racy to co m

m it m arri ag e frau d, th ereb y e x t e n d i n g hi s co ns pi racy cri m e to a
da te wit hi n fiv e y ears of hi s ad m is si on to th e Uni te d S ta te s. See Ben ne tt , 76 5 F .3d

at 89 5 (rei te rat in g th at th e li m it at io ns pe rio d fo r a c o n s p ira cy ch arg e be gi ns to ru n

fro m th e la st ov ert act co m m it te d i n f

u r t he ran ce of th e co ns pi racy). The

co ns pi rat or ia l ob

jecti ve was no t a c h i e ve d on th e da te of th e m arri ag e, Aug us t 22

, 19 99

, be cau se th e ob

je c t i v e o f th e co ns pi racy was no t to m arry a Uni te d St at es
ci ti zen

. Rat he r, th e ob

jecti ve of th e cri m in al co ns pi racy, as id en ti fie d in th e cri m in al

in fo rm at io n to whi ch Ash raf vo lu nt ari ly pl ed gu il ty, was fo r “ Pak is ta ni na ti on al s to

frau du le nt ly es ta bl is h a le ga l m ean s th ro ug h th ei r m arri ag es in whi ch to ad jus t th ei r

st at us fro m

Pak is ta ni na ti on al s t o l awfu l p erm an en t re si de nt s of t he Uni te d S ta te s.”

In or de r to ad

jus t hi s st at us to th at of a la wfu l pe rm an en t res id en t of th e Uni te d St at es , Ash raf was req ui red to fil e a joi nt pe ti ti on wit h Sp erry at te st in g th at th e m arri ag e was

“ no t en te red in to fo r th e pu rp os e of pr oc ur in g an al ie n’s ad m is si on as an im m ig ran t.”

8 U.S.C. §§ 11 86 a(c) (1 )(A), (d )(1 )(A)(i )(III ). W it ho ut Ash raf’s su bm is si on of su ch

-5

-a pe ti ti on , hi s s ta tu s as a pe rm an en t res id en t wou ld ha ve be en te rm in at ed

, an d he

wou ld ha ve be en su bjec t to rem ov al fr o m t he Uni te d St at es

. The pe ti ti on was

ne ces sa ry to be co m e a la wfu l pe rm an en t res id en t of th e Uni te d St at es an d was

t h e r e f o r e a ne ces sa ry ov ert act in fu rth eran ce of Ash raf’s co ns pi racy to ad jus t h i s

st at us th ro ug h th e us e of a sh am m arri ag e. Ash raf’s cri m e was th eref or e no t co m

pl et e

un ti l Ju ly 13

, 20 02

, th e da te Ash raf si gn ed th e pe ti ti on , whi ch is wit hi n fiv e y ears of
Sep te m be r 8, 2 00 0, h is da te of a dm is si on to th e Uni te d S ta te s.

III.

Acco rd in gl y , we up ho ld th e BIA’s fin di n g th at Ash raf is rem ov ab le un de r

8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 2) (A)(i ) as an a l i e n who co m m it te d a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al

tu rp it ud e wit hi n fi ve y ears of h is ad m is si on to th e Uni te d S ta te s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-