United States v. Hamid Mohamed Ahmed Ali Rehaif
868 F.3d 907
11th Cir.2017Background
- Rehaif, an F-1 student, was academically dismissed from Florida Institute of Technology and his immigration status was terminated after he failed to transfer or leave the U.S.
- He visited a shooting range, fired rented firearms, bought ammunition, and later admitted to an FBI agent that he knew his student visa was out of status; remaining ammunition was found in his hotel room.
- A federal grand jury charged Rehaif with two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) (alien illegally or unlawfully in the U.S. possessing a firearm or ammunition) and the mens rea provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2).
- At trial the government asked the court to instruct the jury that it need not prove the defendant knew he was unlawfully in the U.S.; Rehaif requested an instruction that unlawful presence requires an adjudication by USCIS or an immigration judge.
- The district court refused Rehaif’s requested instructions and instead instructed that the government need not prove knowledge of unlawful presence and that an alien is unlawfully in the U.S. when his presence is not authorized by law.
- Rehaif appealed, challenging (1) whether § 924(a)(2)’s “knowingly” requires knowledge of status, (2) when an alien becomes “illegally or unlawfully” present for § 922(g)(5)(A), and (3) the statute’s constitutionality (the latter foreclosed by precedent).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 924(a)(2)’s “knowingly” requires knowledge of prohibited status under § 922(g)(5)(A) | Rehaif: “knowingly” modifies all elements; govt must prove he knew he was unlawfully in the U.S. when possessing the firearm | Government: “knowingly” applies to possession (conduct) only; courts uniformly do not require proof of knowledge of status | Court: Affirmed that government need not prove knowledge of status; mens rea applies to possession element only |
| When an alien becomes “illegally or unlawfully” in the U.S. for § 922(g)(5)(A) | Rehaif: “Unlawful presence” under INA requires expiration adjudication by USCIS or immigration judge; so status is not unlawful until adjudicated | Government: An alien becomes unlawful upon violation/expiration of authorized status (e.g., stopping full-time study) | Court: Adopted the government view — unlawful when presence is not authorized by law (e.g., when visa conditions are violated) |
| Constitutional challenge (commerce clause) | Rehaif: § 922(g) exceeds commerce power as applied | Government: Circuit precedent upholds § 922(g) | Court: Rejected challenge as foreclosed by circuit precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Games-Perez, 667 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir.) (concurrence arguing “knowingly” should cover status element)
- United States v. Jackson, 120 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir.) (holding knowledge of felon status not required under § 922(g)(1))
- United States v. Langley, 62 F.3d 602 (4th Cir.) (history and interpretation supporting no mens rea for status element)
- United States v. Atandi, 376 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir.) (statutory drafting shows Congress specifies when adjudication is required in other § 922(g) provisions)
- United States v. Winchester, 916 F.2d 601 (11th Cir.) (treating subsections of § 922(g) as differing only by required status)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (Sup. Ct.) (rule of lenity principles; lenity applies only where statutory ambiguity persists)