972 F.3d 1183
11th Cir.2020Background
- Jimenez ran a scheme to obtain EB-1C (multinational executive/manager) immigrant petitions by recruiting U.S. businesses to serve as petitioners and filing I-140 petitions and supporting materials that falsely described qualifying joint ventures and employment.
- Conspirators backdated and fabricated joint-venture agreements, cover letters, job offer letters, bank statements, invoices, and other documents; beneficiaries obtained visas but did not work for the U.S. businesses.
- Co-conspirator Christopher Dean pleaded guilty to money-laundering conspiracy and testified; multiple U.S. business owners testified their signatures or documents were forged or false.
- Indictment charged conspiracy to commit immigration-document fraud (18 U.S.C. § 371 and the fourth paragraph of § 1546(a)), conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)), and money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i)); most wire-fraud counts were dismissed.
- A jury convicted Jimenez on Counts 1 (immigration-document fraud conspiracy), 8 (money-laundering conspiracy), and 9 (money laundering); district court imposed concurrent 33-month sentences and three years supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Government | Jimenez | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Form I-140 and accompanying statements are “documents required by the immigration laws or regulations” under the 4th paragraph of § 1546(a) | I-140 and the required supporting statement demonstrating the qualifying relationship are mandated by INA/regulations and so qualify | I-140 supporting documents (other than ability-to-pay records) are optional; therefore not "required" documents under § 1546(a) | I-140 petitions and the required accompanying statements under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j) qualify as "other documents required by the immigration laws or regulations" for § 1546(a) |
| Whether the government presented sufficient evidence that the I-140s and supporting materials contained material false statements | Testimony and documentary evidence showed I-140s and cover letters certified under penalty of perjury contained fabricated joint-venture agreements, forged signatures, and false employment representations | Documents were not necessarily false or were not the "required" documents alleged; some documentary gaps exist | There was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find the I-140s and accompanying statements contained material false statements and were presented under penalty of perjury |
| Whether money-laundering convictions require a proved underlying specified unlawful activity (i.e., visa fraud) | Visa fraud via § 1546(a) violations supplied proceeds and thus satisfied the specified-unlawful-activity element for § 1956 counts | If visa-fraud conspiracy (Count 1) fails, there is no specified unlawful activity to support the § 1956 convictions | Because jury could reasonably convict on the § 1546(a) conspiracy, the § 1956(h) and § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) convictions stand |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard for sufficiency-of-evidence review)
- United States v. Pirela Pirela, 809 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir. 2015) (interpretation of § 1546(a) contexts)
- United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2003) (elements of § 371 conspiracy)
- United States v. Alejandro, 118 F.3d 1518 (11th Cir. 1997) (considering all trial evidence on sufficiency review)
- United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 2008) (overt acts in conspiracy may be innocent acts taken in furtherance)
- United States v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2006) (requirements for proving § 1956 money-laundering offenses)