United States v. Edgar Alexander Pirela Pirela, 809 F.3d 1195

Defendant Edgar Pirela Pirela, a Venezuelan national, applied for and received a B1/B2 visa in 2011 after answering "No" to a question about prior arrests/convictions on his DS-160 visa application.
In 2014, on arrival at Miami International Airport, CBP officers discovered his undisclosed Venezuelan arrest/conviction; Pirela admitted in a sworn statement that he had lied on the application because he feared denial.
A federal grand jury indicted Pirela under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) for possessing/using a visa "procured by means of any false claim or statement."
At a bench trial the parties stipulated to many facts; the Government presented two witnesses (a CBP officer and a Diplomatic Security Service agent) who testified that criminal-history admissions affect visa adjudication and would at least trigger further review or administrative suspension.
The district court denied Pirela’s Rule 29 motion, applying a materiality standard requiring that the false statement have a "natural tendency to influence or the capability to influence" agency action; Pirela appealed the sufficiency-of-the-evidence ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Meaning of "procured by means of" in 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a)	Government: requires only that the false statement have a natural tendency or capability to influence agency action	Pirela: requires a heightened "but-for" or statutory-ineligibility showing — that truthful answer would have rendered him ineligible for the visa	Court: Affirmed lower court — adopted the natural-tendency/capability-to-influence standard
Sufficiency of evidence to convict under § 1546(a)	Government: stipulations plus witness testimony showed the false answer forestalled further adjudicative steps and could influence consular action	Pirela: evidence insufficient because admission of criminal history does not automatically bar a B1/B2 visa; government failed to prove he would have been statutorily ineligible	Court: Evidence sufficient when viewed in favor of the Government under the natural-tendency standard

Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (discusses materiality in immigration misrepresentation context; adopts "natural tendency" test for materiality)
United States v. Johnson, 139 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 1998) (applies "natural tendency" materiality standard in a related criminal context)
United States v. Rojas, 718 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2013) (standard for statutory interpretation in criminal cases)
United States v. Westry, 524 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence on Rule 29 appeals)
United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1999) (endorses natural-tendency approach over a but-for test in customs false-statement prosecutions)
United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc., 602 F.2d 747 (5th Cir. 1979) (earlier decision applying a heightened materiality requirement in an importation context)
United States v. Sepulveda, 115 F.3d 882 (11th Cir. 1997) (counsels sensible construction of criminal statutes)