United States v. Fatih Sonmez, 777 F.3d 684

Sonmez, a Turkish national who overstayed a tourist visa, married U.S. citizen Tina Eckloff in Nov. 2008 and applied for a green card; USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny, suspecting fraud.
HSI investigation uncovered an alleged scheme where U.S. citizens received money to marry foreign nationals; Eckloff eventually admitted she married Sonmez for payment and pled guilty, cooperating at Sonmez’s trial.
At trial, Eckloff testified she married Sonmez for about $2,000 and had no romantic relationship; Sonmez testified the marriage was bona fide, describing a longer dating history, cohabitation, sexual relations, and intent to start a life together.
The indictment charged Sonmez under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c) (criminalizing knowingly entering into a marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws); the jury convicted Sonmez.
Sonmez proposed jury instructions requiring the government to prove (1) his "sole" purpose was to obtain an immigration benefit and (2) he lacked any intent to establish a life with his spouse; the district court refused and instead tracked the statutory language.
Sonmez appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion by refusing his proposed instructions; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Sonmez's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the statute requires proof the defendant's "sole" purpose was to evade immigration laws	The jury must find the marriage was entered into for the sole purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit	The statute requires only that the marriage was entered into "for the purpose" of evading immigration laws (no "sole" requirement)	Court refused to add "sole" element; instruction tracking statutory text proper
Whether lack of intent to "establish a life together" is an element of §1325(c)	The jury must be instructed that defendant had no intent to establish a life with spouse	That intent is relevant evidence but not a statutory element; not required as an instruction	Court held "no intent to establish a life" is not an element; admissible as evidence but not required instruction
Whether district court abused discretion by refusing proposed instructions	Proposed instructions were correct and necessary for defense	Proposed instructions were incorrect statements of law and largely covered by the court’s charge	Court found no abuse of discretion; instructions incorrect as a matter of law
Whether rule of lenity required construing statute in defendant’s favor	Ambiguity mandates narrowing statute (add "sole" requirement)	No grievous statutory ambiguity; plain text controls	Court rejected lenity argument; statute not gravely ambiguous

Ignacio v. United States, 674 F.3d 252 (4th Cir.) (courts must interpret statutes as written; cannot add words)
Bartko v. United States, 728 F.3d 327 (4th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for jury instruction rulings)
McFadden v. United States, 753 F.3d 432 (4th Cir.) (same standard for instruction review)
United States v. Chowdhury, 169 F.3d 402 (6th Cir.) (refused to require "sole" purpose element; proper to track statute)
United States v. Ortiz-Mendez, 634 F.3d 837 (5th Cir.) (rejected adding "no intent to establish a life" as element; such intent is one factor)
United States v. Darif, 446 F.3d 701 (7th Cir.) (approved instruction tracking statutory language; rejected "establish a life" as element)
United States v. Islam, 418 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir.) (held intent to establish a life may be relevant but is not an element)
United States v. Tagalicud, 84 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.) (held sham marriage defined by lack of intent to establish a life together)
United States v. Orellana-Blanco, 294 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir.) (followed Tagalicud; required finding of no intent to establish a life)
Bark v. INS, 511 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir.) (civil precedent discussing sham marriage concept)
Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (U.S.) (rule of lenity applies only where grievous statutory ambiguity exists)