Opinion ID: 4558485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: False Statements in Immigration Documents

Text: In Count 1, Jimenez was found guilty of conspiracy to commit immigrationdocument fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and the fourth paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). To prove a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, as alleged in Count 1, the government must show: “(1) an agreement among two or more persons to achieve an unlawful objective; (2) knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement; and (3) an overt act by a conspirator in furtherance of the agreement.” United 15 Case: 18-10569 Date Filed: 08/25/2020 Page: 16 of 25 States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 1270 (11th Cir. 2003). Here, the charged unlawful objective was to commit the fraud offense in paragraph four of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). Section 1546(a) contains four unnumbered paragraphs, each of which criminalizes different fraudulent conduct involving immigration documents. 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a); see United States v. Pirela Pirela, 809 F.3d 1195, 1200 (11th Cir. 2015) (interpreting the first paragraph of § 1546(a)). The fourth paragraph of § 1546(a) criminalizes making a sworn false statement in a document “required by the immigration laws or regulations,” as follows: Whoever knowingly makes under oath, or as permitted under penalty of perjury under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, knowingly subscribes as true, any false statement with respect to a material fact in any application, affidavit, or other document required by the immigration laws or regulations prescribed thereunder, or knowingly presents any such application, affidavit, or other document which contains any such false statement or which fails to contain any reasonable basis in law or fact—[commits an offense under this section]. 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) (emphasis added). As charged in Jimenez’s indictment, the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jimenez: (1) conspired; (2) to knowingly make a false statement under oath or to knowingly subscribe under penalty of perjury that a false statement was true; (3) the false statement was “with respect to a material fact”; and (4) the false statement was made in a document “required by the immigration laws and regulations.” 16 Case: 18-10569 Date Filed: 08/25/2020 Page: 17 of 25 Jimenez’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge concerns only this last element of the conspiracy’s charged objective. The two questions in this appeal are: (1) whether an I-140 petition is a document “required by the immigration laws or regulations”; and if so, (2) whether the government presented sufficient evidence of false statements being made in the I-140 petitions involved here.