Opinion ID: 4527791
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unlawful Use of Identification Document

Text: A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant: (1) “knowingly used documents prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States;” and (2) “knew the documents had been forged, counterfeited, falsely made, or unlawfully obtained.” United States v. Machorro-Xochicale, 840 F.3d 545, 548 (8th Cir. 2016). The government presented sufficient evidence of both elements at trial. When Gonzalez-Esparsa was hired by Midwest Concrete he was given the I-9, W-4, and an employment application and was specifically told to fill out the paperwork, return it to the office, and provide two forms of identification. Specifically, he was told to return the paperwork to the mailbox in the shop. The I-9, W-4, and employment paperwork were retrieved from the mailbox — including a permanent resident card and social security card, each identifying Gonzalez-Esparsa. His application indicated Gonzalez-Esparsa was eligible for employment in the United States. And as we have previously held, a permanent resident card and a social security card are both “documents prescribed by statute or regulation as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States.” Machorro-Xochicale, 840 F.3d at 548–49. Based on this evidence, a reasonable juror could find the government met its burden of proving the first element required for a violation of § 1546(a). The circumstantial evidence indicates the employment paperwork was completed using fraudulent identification documents that are prescribed by statute. The paperwork, along with the fraudulent social security card and permanent resident card bearing Gonzalez-Esparsa’s photo, were placed in the employee mailbox, which was accessible only to employees on the work crew, and was otherwise in a secured shop. In light of this evidence, it was reasonable for a jury to conclude it was Gonzalez- -4- Esparsa who knowingly used these prescribed documents in his employment paperwork. There was also sufficient evidence to satisfy the second element of § 1546(a), that Gonzalez-Esparsa knew the documents were forged, counterfeited, falsely made, or unlawfully obtained. Gonzalez-Esparsa freely admitted to Officer Walker that he was a citizen of Mexico and was not legally present in the United States. He never claimed to be a lawful permanent resident nor to have ever come in contact with the United States immigration system since arriving in the country. There was evidence Gonzalez-Esparsa was never issued an alien registration number, and that the government does not issue illegal aliens lawful permanent resident cards. Considering this evidence, a reasonable juror could conclude Gonzalez-Esparsa knew the permanent resident card bearing his name and photograph had been forged, counterfeited, falsely made, or unlawfully obtained when he used it to secure employment.