Opinion ID: 182627
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ashraf's alleged good-faith refusal to obtain travel documents

Text: Ashraf's second argument regarding his motion for a judgment of acquittal is that his efforts to challenge his removal were reasonable in light of the manner he was treated by immigration authorities. Although he is not suggest[ing] that [he] should win on the merits regarding his immigration claims, he argues that because he act[ed] in good faith in seeking the remedies he seeks, the jury was precluded by the `proper steps' and `good faith' definitions given to them by the Court from convicting Mr. Ashraf on any count alleged in the indictment.
Ashraf misinterprets the good-faith and proper-steps prongs that are contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1253. As the district court correctly stated during a hearing concerning the proposed jury instructions, the government need not prove that Ashraf failed to act in good faith when he failed to execute the travel documents. The government is required to prove that he acted willfully. . . . Congress intended that the application itself had to be in good faith . . . rather than [that the] refusal could be in good faith. An examination of the plain text of the statute and the overall statutory scheme regarding the removal of aliens makes clear that Ashraf's proposed good-faith exception does not exist. See United States v. Adeyinka, 205 Fed.Appx. 238, 241 (5th Cir.2006) (The statute's good faith exception does not apply to those who willfully and knowingly violate its terms. The good faith language simply applies to those who try to comply with the statute in `good faith' but nevertheless fail to obtain documents in a timely manner.). Moreover, the provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(2) that relieves an alien from liability for taking any proper steps for the purpose of securing cancellation of or exemption from such order of removal is intended to prevent the alien from being prosecuted on the basis of his or her attempts to contest removal. Adeyinka, 205 Fed.Appx. at 241 (holding that the proper-steps exception is intended to prevent the government from prosecuting an alien who challenges deportation. This exception does not apply to Adeyinka because by refusing to sign the documents, Adeyinka was not challenging his deportation.). The provision, therefore, does not exempt an alien from his or her obligation to apply in good faith for the documents necessary for departure. Ashraf criticizes the government's reliance on Adeyinka because it is an unreported decision from another circuit, but he cites no authority in support of his own interpretation of the statute. Moreover, Adeyinka 's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1253 appears to us as the most logical reading of the statutory text. The United States Code provides aliens subject to removal proceedings with specific instructions on how to contest their removal, such as 8 U.S.C. § 1252's provisions for judicial review of removal orders. In contrast, 8 U.S.C. § 1253, the statutory section at issue in the present case, imposes certain obligations on aliens facing removal. Although aliens may contest their removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, such efforts do not abrogate the obligations imposed by 8 U.S.C. § 1253. See Adeyinka, 205 Fed. Appx. at 241. Section 1253's proper-steps exception, in other words, prevents Ashraf's efforts to challenge his removal from being used as evidence of his failure to obtain his travel documents. But by the same token, his attempts to have his removal reversed do not excuse him from his statutory obligation to make a good-faith effort to obtain travel documents at the request of the ICE agents. And the jury was properly instructed according to these legal principles. Ashraf's complaints concerning how the government dealt with his immigration issues are simply not relevant to the present appeal. In fact, he acknowledges that [i]t is not suggested that Mr. Ashraf should win on the merits regarding his immigration claims. Ashraf instead limits his argument to the claim that his subjective beliefs about the purported invalidity of his removal provided him with a good-faith basis for refusing to assist the government in obtaining the documents that were necessary for his removal. But as the district court explained, I'm not insensitive to the fact the defendant believes he has been dealt a wrong by immigration authorities, however, any wrongs that may or may not have occurred prior to the issuance of the final order of removal, or final removal order, are not at issue here.