Opinion ID: 803702
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: has been brought into the United States

Text: in violation of this subsection. 10 WALTERS v. MCMAHEN 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3). This particular predicate act has been analyzed in similar contexts by two of our sister circuits. See Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2010); Commercial Cleaning Servs., L.L.C. v. Colin Serv. Sys., Inc., 271 F.3d 374 (2d Cir. 2001). As our sister circuits have explained, the illegal hiring predicate has two distinct mens rea elements, both of which must be present in order for a violation to occur. First, a defendant must hire ten or more aliens within a 12-month period with actual knowledge that those aliens are not authorized to work in the United States. Edwards, 602 F.3d at 1292-93. Second, the defendant must have actual knowledge that the unauthorized aliens hired were brought into the country in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a). Id. at 1293; Commercial Cleaning Servs., 271 F.3d at 387. This second element is a crucial component of any violation of the illegal hiring predicate. It is this element, requiring actual knowledge that the aliens were brought into this country illegally, that distinguishes 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3), which contains the element and qualifies as a RICO predicate act, from 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1), which does not contain the element and is not a RICO predicate act but otherwise is substantially similar.6 See Nichols v. Mahoney, 608 F. Supp. 2d 526, 534-35 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (comparing the two provisions). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3), the RICO predicate act, the hiring of ten or more unauthorized aliens with knowledge that they were brought into this country illegally, exposes the employer to the imposition of fines or to a term of imprisonment of up to five years, or both. Edwards, 602 F.3d at 1293. 6 Section 1324a(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: In general. It is unlawful for a person or other entity— (A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3) of this section) with respect to such employment . . . . WALTERS v. MCMAHEN 11 In contrast, under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1), the act of hiring unauthorized aliens without knowledge that they were brought into this country illegally limits the employer’s exposure to the imposition of civil penalties.7 Id. The district court determined that the plaintiffs’ allegations with respect to the illegal hiring predicate were deficient in two respects. The district court stated that the plaintiffs: 1) failed to identify any employee actually known to be an unauthorized alien; and 2) made only conclusory allegations regarding the manner in which the unauthorized aliens were brought into the United States. Although we disagree with the district court’s determination that a plaintiff must identify a particular unauthorized alien worker to satisfy the pleading standards established in Twombly and Iqbal, we nevertheless agree with the court’s ultimate holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim that the defendants violated the illegal hiring predicate. Initially, as the plaintiffs observe, the purported name of an unauthorized alien hired by Perdue likely would emerge only in the form of a pseudonym used by the alien on the I-9 form. The inclusion of such a pseudonym in the complaint would be of minimal value with respect to increasing the plausibility of the plaintiffs’ claim. Moreover, the mission of the alleged conspiracy is the defendants’ procurement of the unauthorized aliens brought into the country and hiring them to work for Perdue. Thus, because the individual aliens are not alleged to be conspirators but are merely subjects of the hiring scheme, they need not be described with the same detail as the conspirators, at least some of whom must be identified with a degree of particularity. See Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. P & B Autobody, 43 F.3d 1546, 1562 (1st Cir. 1994) (noting that each defendant must agree with one or more co-conspirators). 7 While a pattern of violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1) could expose an employer to a criminal sentence of up to six months’ imprisonment, even repeated violations of that statute would not qualify as a RICO predicate act. Edwards, 602 F.3d at 1293. 12 WALTERS v. MCMAHEN Instead, the fatal deficiency of the illegal hiring predicate allegations is the failure to provide sufficient factual support concerning the unauthorized aliens’ entry into the United States. As stated above, the illegal hiring predicate requires that the violator employ at least ten aliens within a 12-month period with actual knowledge that each employee is an unauthorized alien and that each has been brought into the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3). The amended complaint contains only two allegations that bear on the transportation of aliens into the United States. Paragraph 54 of the amended complaint provides, in relevant part, that since 2006, [the hiring clerk defendants] have personally hired hundreds of workers (and more than 10 per year, each) with actual knowledge that the workers . . . had been brought into the country with the assistance of others on their illicit journey across the U.S.-Mexico border . . . . Also, paragraph 108 provides, in relevant part, that on information and belief, Defendant Paez [a hiring clerk] is also responsible for directly working with ‘coyotes’ and ‘runners’ to obtain employment at Perdue for the illegal immigrants when they arrive in the local community. For these services, Paez charges the local immigrants a fee. These paragraphs fail to establish the elements of a violation of the illegal hiring predicate. Paragraph 54 merely recasts the language of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3), and provides no factual basis to support the statement that hiring clerks had actual knowledge that the unauthorized aliens had been brought into the country with the assistance of others. Likewise, paragraph 108, which alleges that a single hiring clerk at one facility, on occasion, has worked with coyotes and runners to obtain unauthorized aliens for employment at Perdue, does not render plausible the contention that this clerk knowingly hired ten or more unauthorized aliens within one year knowing that they each received assistance crossing the border between the United States and Mexico. Moreover, WALTERS v. MCMAHEN 13 this allegation in paragraph 108 does not support a conclusion that a widespread conspiracy is being conducted to hire unauthorized aliens at fourteen Perdue facilities.8 Thus, the plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the illegal hiring predicate fail to advance their claim across the line from conceivable to plausible. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. We note that, prior to Twombly and Iqbal, the Ninth Circuit made a contrary holding with respect to similar language in a complaint involving the illegal hiring predicate. In Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co., 301 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2002), the court held that an allegation the defendant company knew that unauthorized aliens hired were smuggled into the United States sufficiently supported the illegal hiring predicate for purposes of surviving a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 1168. However, at the time Mendoza was decided, the dismissal of a complaint was appropriate only if it was clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Mendoza, 301 F.3d at 1167 (quoting Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002)). As the decisions in Twombly and Iqbal have made clear, the standard employed in Mendoza no longer is applicable. Additionally, we disagree with the plaintiffs’ contention that the use of judicial experience and common sense, as authorized by Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, would lead to a conclusion that the aliens were brought into the United States, within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(B)(ii), because it is not plausible that they crossed over the border from Mexico and walked to Maryland or to any other Perdue location on their own. The plaintiffs conflate the rendering of any assistance to aliens during their course of travel with the act 8 The plaintiffs also refer us to their allegations involving illegal aliens obtaining false identification documents at facilities in the United States. However, these allegations have no bearing on the issue whether and in what manner the illegal aliens were brought into the United States. 14 WALTERS v. MCMAHEN of bringing unauthorized alien workers into the United States. However, because the illegal hiring predicate requires that unauthorized alien workers be brought into the United States, a violation requires that a party other than the aliens actively assist with the alien workers’ entry into the United States. Once these alien workers have arrived in the United States, any assistance that they receive from other parties is immaterial to the illegal hiring predicate. Therefore, while judicial experience and common sense may suggest that unauthorized aliens arriving in Maryland or other states did not travel there entirely by foot, it is not so obvious that such aliens allegedly employed at Perdue’s facilities necessarily were brought into the United States by others. Accordingly, we conclude that the plaintiffs have not alleged sufficiently a violation of the illegal hiring predicate.