United States v. Ashraf
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 589
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Ashraf entered the United States on an F-1 student visa in 1992 and later sought permanent residency but his 1997 application was denied due to backlogs.
- Ashraf was convicted in 2003 for being a nonimmigrant in possession of firearms or ammunition, an aggravated felony, leading to removal proceedings.
- A final removal order was issued on June 24, 2008; Ashraf refused to sign travel documents in May–July 2008 and contested his removal.
- Ashraf was charged with four counts under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1)(B) and (C) for willfully failing or refusing to obtain travel documents, and for conniving to prevent departure.
- In March 2009, Ashraf was tried; he was convicted on two counts and acquitted on two counts; he received a 12-month sentence on each conviction to run concurrently.
- Ashraf appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings and the district court’s denial of a judgment of acquittal, while arguing mootness due to his deportation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot after Ashraf's removal? | Ashraf argues collateral consequences permit ongoing review. | Government contends removal renders the appeal moot. | Not moot; collateral consequences sustain appellate jurisdiction. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to support willful failure to obtain travel documents? | Ashraf contends inconsistent verdicts show lack of willful failure. | Government asserts sufficient evidence for willful failure under each charged incident. | Sufficient evidence supports convictions; inconsistent verdicts do not warrant reversal. |
| Does 8 U.S.C. § 1253 permit a good-faith defense to noncompliance with travel-document obligations? | Ashraf claims a good-faith defense based on his immigration status and treatment. | Government rejects a good-faith defense; requirement is willfulness, not belief. | No good-faith defense; proper-steps arguments do not excuse willful noncompliance. |
| Were the district court's evidentiary rulings proper regarding immigration status and prior firearms conviction? | Ashraf sought to introduce immigration-status evidence and related defenses. | Government argued such evidence was irrelevant or prejudicial. | No abuse of discretion; exclusion was proper as the matters did not affect the willful noncompliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (no automatic reversal for inconsistent verdicts; independent sufficiency review applies)
- United States v. Lawrence, 555 F.3d 254 (6th Cir. 2009) (inconsistent verdicts without arbitrariness need not be reconciled)
- United States v. Spencer, 523 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1998) (collateral consequences presumption for some convictions challenging)
- Gentry v. Deuth, 456 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2006) (recognizes collateral consequences as sufficient to sustain jurisdiction)
- Chong v. District Director, INS, 264 F.3d 378 (3d Cir. 2001) (continued injury post-removal can sustain review where reentry is possible)
- United States v. Al-Najar v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2008) (removal-related challenges; cannot relitigate already adjudicated matters)
- United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2007) (distinguishes mootness in deportation context when sentence review is at issue)