Opinion ID: 790772
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Come to Versus Enter the United States

Text: 16 Section 1324(a)(2) requires the government to prove that Munoz brought aliens to the United States knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that [the] alien[s] ha[d] not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2) (2004). Munoz offers a proposed construction of the phrase come to the United States and argues that, while the government proved that the aliens lacked permission to enter the United States, it failed to prove that they lacked permission to come to the United States. 17 The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-603, § 112, 100 Stat. 3539 (1986) (IRCA), expanded the reach of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a). Prior to IRCA, § 1324(a) criminalized bring[ing] into or land[ing] in the United States any alien not duly admitted by an immigration officer or not lawfully entitled to enter or reside within the United States. See United States v. Aguilar, 883 F.2d 662, 671-72 n. 2 (9th Cir.1989), superceded by statute as stated in United States v. Gonzalez-Torres, 309 F.3d 594, 599-600 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 969, 123 S.Ct. 1768, 155 L.Ed.2d 526 (2003). Our § 1324(a) case law required proof that the alien was physically present in the United States and free from official restraint, i.e., that the alien had entered the United States, as that term is understood in the immigration context. Id. at 680-82; see also Gonzalez-Torres, 309 F.3d at 598(explaining the official restraint doctrine). IRCA amended § 1324(a), replacing the words brings into with the words brings to in order to overrule precedent that required an alien's entry to sustain a smuggling conviction. Id. at 599. Under the current version of § 1324(a), a smuggling conviction does not require proof of an alien's entry. Id. at 599-600. 18 IRCA also changed the requisite status of a smuggled alien under § 1324(a). The government previously had to demonstrate that the alien was not duly admitted by an immigration officer or not lawfully entitled to enter or reside within the United States. See Aguilar, 883 F.2d at 671-72 n. 2. The post-IRCA § 1324(a)(2) requires that the smuggler act knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2) (2004). 19 The parties disagree about the appropriate construction of the phrase come to the United States. Munoz appears to contend that to come to the United States means to approach the United States border from within another country without actually crossing the border. The government's argument implies that to come to the United States means to cross the border into the United States with or without official restraint, i.e., to cross the border so as to be physically present in the United States whether or not one has actually entered. Munoz's interpretation is problematic because, as the government points out, an alien does not need prior official authorization to approach the United States border. The government's construction comports with congressional intent to remove the official restraint doctrine as a hurdle to criminal liability for alien smuggling. Cf. United States v. Hernandez-Garcia, 284 F.3d 1135, 1137-39 (9th Cir.2002) (recognizing a distinction between coming to and entering the United States that renders the official restraint doctrine inapplicable to a § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) alien transporting offense). We therefore hold that an alien comes to the United States when the alien crosses the border into the United States regardless of whether he or she is under official restraint. 2