United States v. Henderson, 2012 WL 1432552

Henderson, a CBP Boston Area Port Director, oversaw immigration enforcement at ports of entry.
She intermittently employed Fabiana Bitencourt, an illegal alien, as a home cleaning lady.
CBP advisories prohibited employing illegal aliens; Henderson’s conduct occurred despite these directives.
Henderson gave Bitencourt immigration-law guidance during the relationship, under covert surveillance by investigators.
Bitencourt’s responses to questions and Henderson’s advice were used to charge Henderson under 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) for encouraging or inducing residence.
Henderson was convicted by a jury; post-trial motions sought judgment of acquittal and a new trial, which the court reserved on.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) reaches private homemaker employment	Henderson	Henderson	Statute may reach; but instructed errors require a new trial
Whether Henderson’s immigration advice constitutes sufficient felony conduct	Henderson	Henderson	Evidence insufficient under DelRio-Mocci; need substantial affirmative assistance
Whether jury instructions were adequate under DelRio-Mocci	Henderson	Henderson	Instructions too open-textured; require new trial with DelRio-Mocci-compliant definitions

Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) (overlap of statutes coexists; implicit repeal not presumed)
Kim, 193 F.3d 567 (2d Cir. 1999) (defendant may be prosecuted under multiple statutes independently)
DelRio-Mocci v. Connolly Properties, Inc., 672 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2012) (encouragement/inducement requires substantial affirmative assistance)
Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2010) (broad reading of §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) can be problematic)
United States v. Zheng, 306 F.3d 1080 (11th Cir. 2002) (overlapping statutes may coexist despite different penalties)
Ozcelik, 527 F.3d 88 (3d Cir. 2008) (general advice to stay low is not enough for §1324(a)(l)(A)(iv))