Opinion ID: 765927
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of Immigration Venue Statute--8 U.S.C. S 1329

Text: 38 We turn finally to the government's alternative argument, accepted by the district court, that 8 U.S.C.S 1329, the immigration venue statute, provides for venue in the Western District of Washington because Hernandez was apprehended in Washington. But, being apprehended is not the crime with which Hernandez was charged and the place of apprehension is not necessarily the district where the crime was committed. Under the Constitution, the accused has a right to a trial in the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. U.S. Const. amend. VI. We heed the SupremeCourt's admonition that venue provisions in Acts of Congress should not be so freely construed as to give the Government the choice of a tribunal favorable to it. Travis v. United States, 364 U.S. 631, 634 (1961) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 39 In this case, Hernandez has represented that policy differences between the United States Attorney's Offices for the District of Oregon and the Western District of Washington regarding prosecutions under 8 U.S.C. S 1326 render the Western District of Washington a more favorable tribunal for the government than the District of Oregon. We note this argument because curiosity leads one to ask, Why does venue matter? Nonetheless, this representation has no bearing upon our legal analysis. Regardless of whether any difference in charging practices actually exists, 4 we decline to read section 1329 to provide for venue in a district other than where the crime of being found in the United States was committed. See 2 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S 302, at 201 (2d ed. 1982) (Congress lacks power to provide for trial in a district other than that in which the offense was committed . . . . ); 8 Charles Gordon et al., Immigration Law & Procedure S 111.09[2], at 111-161 (1998) (section 1329 must be construed, of course, in harmony with the Sixth Amendment, which requires trial in `the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed' ). 40 Although the intersection between section 1329 and the Constitution has not been addressed in a published federal case, the Office of Legal Counsel for the United States Department of Justice has recognized a constitutional flaw in section 1329 as applied to the crime of eluding inspection, a violation of 8 U.S.C. S 1325: [Section ] 1329 is unconstitutional since it authorizes prosecution in a district other than the district at or near the border where the inspection should have taken place. 2 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 110, 110 (1978). The Office of Legal Counsel opinion, however, goes on to suggest that section 1329 makes good sense  with respect to section 1326, id. at 111, but the opinion's reasoning does not support the government's argument in this case. The opinion noted that under section 1326, if an alien who had previously been deported was found in a particular locality he could properly be prosecuted in that locality because in that context his presence there constituted a continuing offense that had begun when he reentered. Id. at 111-12. The Office of Legal Counsel opinion does not analyze the constitutional issue presented by a case like this, in which the defendant was prosecuted in a district other than where he was first found and the crime was committed. Nothing in the Constitution, the Office of Legal Counsel opinion or the venue statutes supports the government's position that a defendant may be identified in one district as subject to prosecution under section 1326, transported under government auspices to another judicial district in the United States, and prosecuted there. Hernandez was found in Oregon, the crime was committed and completed there, and therefore, prosecution should have been in Oregon. 41 We hold that venue was improper in the Western District of Washington. We reverse the district court's denial of the motion to transfer and remand with instructions to transfer the case to the District of Oregon. 5 42 REVERSED AND REMANDED.