15 F.4th 1332
11th Cir.2021Background:
- A multinational scheme fraudulently obtained EB-1C visas for Chinese nationals by fabricating joint-venture paperwork and directing beneficiaries to deposit ~ $300,000 into U.S. bank accounts to create the appearance of legitimate investments.
- The U.S. prosecuted leaders of the conspiracy criminally but pursued an in rem civil forfeiture action for the funds in U.S. accounts; 14 Chinese nationals filed claims to the seized accounts.
- Several claimants were denied entry visas to attend the forfeiture trial; all claimants were represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
- Shortly before trial some claimants moved to dismiss, arguing their exclusion violated due process by preventing them from presenting the statutory innocent-owner defense; the district court denied the motion and reminded them of alternative means (e.g., video testimony, affidavits).
- The jury found the government established a substantial connection between the seized funds and the visa-fraud/money‑laundering scheme, denied innocence to most claimants, but found five claimants to be innocent owners; the claimants who lost appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: no constitutional right to entry for civil litigants in these circumstances; the jury instruction on substantial connection was correct; Min Yang was not entitled to JMOL or a new trial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether foreign nationals have a constitutional right to enter the U.S. to attend a civil forfeiture trial | Claimants: exclusion violated Due Process because it prevented in-person presentation of innocent-owner defense | Government: admission/exclusion is a sovereign prerogative; claimants had counsel and other means to be heard | No constitutional right to entry; representation and alternative means satisfied due process |
| Whether being represented by counsel and not testifying in person deprived claimants of a meaningful opportunity to be heard | Claimants: in‑person presence was necessary to present their defense | Government: counsel could confront witnesses and present evidence; Rule 43 and other measures allow remote testimony | Presence by counsel and available alternatives met due process; absence was not a constitutional violation |
| Proper jury instruction: must government prove owner’s intent to launder (i.e., owner’s mental state)? | Min Yang: instruction should require government to prove the owner transferred funds with intent to promote visa fraud | Government: statute requires proof that property was involved and substantially connected to offense; owner’s culpability is for claimant to prove via innocent-owner defense | Instruction correct: government need not prove owner’s intent; owner bears burden to prove innocence under §983(d) |
| Whether JMOL or new trial was required for Min Yang on innocent-owner defense | Min Yang: circumstantial evidence and similar patterns among testifying claimants compelled inference of innocence | Government: record supported reasonable juror finding that Min Yang failed to prove lack of knowledge; some claimants testified but Min Yang did not | JMOL/new trial denied: substantial evidence permitted the jury’s adverse verdict against Min Yang |
Key Cases Cited
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (immigration exclusion power is a sovereign prerogative; aliens seeking initial admission have no constitutional right to entry)
- Department of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (2020) (reaffirming limited constitutional protections for aliens seeking initial admission)
- United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950) (aliens have no right to entry as a matter of constitutional claim)
- Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896) (sovereign right to exclude aliens)
- Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colom., 771 F.3d 713 (11th Cir. 2014) (owners of property within U.S. have due-process interests in in rem proceedings regardless of location)
- Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co., 250 U.S. 76 (1919) (the right to be heard may be satisfied by presence in person or by counsel)
- Davidson v. Desai, 964 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2020) (a represented civil litigant typically may be heard even if not physically present)
- United States v. Jimenez, 972 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2020) (describing the underlying EB‑1C visa‑fraud scheme prosecuted criminally)
- United States v. Funds in the Amount of One Hundred Thousand & One Hundred Twenty Dollars ($100,120.00), 901 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2018) (civil forfeiture in rem treats property as implicated independent of owner’s culpability)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (due process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- United States v. Herder, 594 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2010) (‘‘substantial connection’’ can be shown by proving the property made the prohibited conduct less difficult)