United States v. Ghulam Sarwari
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2564
4th Cir.2012Background
- Sarwari prepared, signed, and submitted passport applications for his stepsons listing himself as their father, though he was not the biological or adoptive father.
- Birth certificates supplied with the applications identified the children’s biological father; Afghan birth certificates later identified Sarwari as their father.
- Sarwari became a naturalized U.S. citizen and later filed visa/citizenship documents for the children, who entered the U.S. in 1999 via his sponsorship.
- Two Department of Homeland Security/State Department witnesses testified that a stepfather cannot be treated as a father for citizenship or passport eligibility purposes.
- Sarwari testified he knew he was not the biological father but believed his stepchildren were U.S. citizens because of his own citizenship.
- A jury convicted Sarwari on three counts of making false statements on passport applications; district court denied motions for acquittal and new trial, and sentenced him to three concurrent terms of twelve months and one day.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bronston defense applicability | Sarwari argues statements were literally true. | Government contends Bronston defense not applicable to § 1542 in this context. | Bronston defense does not entitle reversal; not literally true under context |
| Fundamental ambiguity of 'father' on passport form | Question is fundamentally ambiguous;徒 | Question is not fundamentally ambiguous; jury decides interpretation | Not fundamentally ambiguous; evidence supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction | Evidence showed ambiguity and possible truth under another construction | Evidence showed Sarwari knew request targeted birth/adoptive father and he falsely answered | Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction |
| Preservation of requested jury instruction on lack of statutory definition | Court should instruct on lack of definition of 'father' and lenity | Instruction not required; good-faith defense already given | District court did not err in refusing; instruction not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1973) (literal truth defense for ambiguous or misleading answers)
- United States v. Good, 326 F.3d 589 (4th Cir. 2003) (reversed conviction where facts supported literal truth under Bronston)
- United States v. Hairston, 46 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 1995) (reversed conviction where context affected meaning of a word)
- United States v. Earp, 812 F.2d 917 (4th Cir. 1987) (reversed conviction where answer literally true but arguably misleading by context)
- United States v. Serafini, 167 F.3d 812 (3d Cir. 1999) (sustained dismissal of indictment on Bronston grounds)
- United States v. Thomas, 612 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (Bronston defense limited to literally true statements)
- United States v. Yasak, 884 F.2d 996 (7th Cir. 1989) (scenarios involving interpretation of terms in perjury cases)
- United States v. Lighte, 782 F.2d 367 (2d Cir. 1986) (ambiguity analysis in perjury contexts)