Opinion ID: 212523
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Immigration and Conspiracy Charges

Text: Bernardo argues that although he participated in activities that were part of the alleged conspiracy, he did not act with knowledge or in reckless disregard of the fact that the Indian workers intended to come to the United States illegally rather than as valid H-2B workers. He claims that because it was equally plausible from the evidence that he thought the workers would be working for Viscardi Services pursuant to H-2B visas, the evidence was insufficient to establish his knowledge that the workers intended to remain illegally. See United States v. Bieganowski, 313 F.3d 264, 275 (5th Cir. 2002). Villar, he claims, was the instigator and “pulled the strings” in the immigration scheme and conspiracy. Bernardo was convicted of encouraging or inducing an alien to enter the United States with knowledge or reckless disregard that such entry was in violation of the law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). The elements of that offense are “(1) encouraging or inducing; (2) an alien; (3) to come to, enter, or reside in the United States; and (4) knowing or in reckless disregard that the alien’s coming to, entering, or residing in the United States is illegal.” Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1294 (11th Cir. 2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, to establish that Bernardo conspired to encourage and induce the entry of aliens in violation of the law, the Government must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) an agreement existed between two or more persons; (2) to commit the substantive crime of inducing or encouraging illegal entry into the United States; and (3) that Bernardo voluntarily participated. United States v. Stephens, 571 F.3d 401, 404 (5th Cir. 2009). Further, the Government must show that he acted with 8 Case: 09-20870 Document: 00511413901 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/16/2011 No. 09-20870 requisite intent for the underlying crime—here, knowledge or reckless disregard. See id. “[A]n agreement may be inferred from concert of action, [v]oluntary participation may be inferred from a collocation of circumstances, and [k]nowledge may be inferred from surrounding circumstances.” United States v. Paul, 142 F.3d 836, 840 (5th Cir. 1998) (second and third alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Lechuga, 888 F.2d 1472, 1476–77 (5th Cir. 1989)). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, the Government presented ample evidence from which a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Bernardo had knowledge or recklessly disregarded the fact that his conduct served to induce illegal immigration. At trial, the Government presented evidence that Bernardo had extensive involvement in the conspiracy, including that he (1) traveled to India on multiple occasions, spending thirty days in the country to assist the visa approval process; and (2) signed several dozen of the H-2B Indian visa applications. Importantly, there is also evidence from two witnesses that Bernardo knew that they were billing each Indian worker $20,000 for each visa. This included testimony and e-mail documentation that Bernardo attempted to cut a side deal with Alberto and Viscardi. Additionally, AMEB, for which Bernardo was an owner and operator, billed Viscardi Services for the Mexican workers’ visas, but not for the Indian workers’ visas. Finally, Alfonso Hernandez, a friend whom Bernardo hired to do some work for AMEB, testified that Bernardo asked him to deposit a $6,000 money order for Bernardo into Hernandez’s personal account and then pay Bernardo the money in cash, which Hernandez did. Beyond this evidence, Bernardo was also not a novice to the process of acquiring H-2B visas; AMEB had previously obtained H-2B visas for Mexican workers under his direction. The applications he signed indicate that he knew the Indians were paying $20,000 per visa for jobs that paid only seven dollars 9 Case: 09-20870 Document: 00511413901 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/16/2011 No. 09-20870 per hour and that could end in less than one year. Thus, a sum of $20,000 per visa would result in a loss of money for the workers over the course of one year. Given his experience, if not from common sense alone, Bernardo should have known that $20,000 per visa was an unreasonable sum for the Indian workers to pay given the type of work and its duration. Additionally, the Government provided evidence that Pena’s other company, North American, filed H-2B visa applications for Mexican workers for jobs that did not exist. Given this evidence, a reasonable jury could infer a similar intent for the Indian visas: that Bernardo knew of the illegal scheme to profit from the Indian visas and that the Indian workers had no intention to work for Viscardi Services. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to prove his knowledge with respect to his participation in the conspiracy and to the substantive offenses.