United States v. Munyenyezi, 781 F.3d 532

Munyenyezi, a Rwanda-born Hutu, fled to Kenya during the 1994 genocide and later immigrated to the United States (1998) after providing false statements.
She sought asylum and later permanent resident status, denying affiliation with any political organization and any involvement in genocidal acts.
She became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2001, declaring on forms that she had no such affiliations or crimes.
In 2006 she testified at ICTR proceedings for her husband, denying roadblock involvement or genocide ties; thereafter the government reviewed her immigration file for possible illegalities.
In 2010 she was indicted on two counts of procuring citizenship illegally by false statements; a prior trial ended in a hung jury, and a second trial resulted in convictions with 120-month concurrent sentences.
The First Circuit affirmed her convictions and sentence, upholding sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence proves both 1425(a) and (b) beyond a reasonable doubt	Munyenyezi argues insufficient proof of misrepresentation and knowledge	Munyenyezi challenges credibility and presence at roadblock	Yes; evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether ICTR excerpts were admissible under Rule 404(b)	Evidence relevant to knowledge and lack of mistake	Excerpts were unfairly prejudicial and constitute improper propensity evidence	Admission was proper for noncharacter purposes; not reversible error
Whether prosecutorial questioning constituted prosecutorial misconduct requiring a mistrial	Questions assumed facts not in evidence; prejudicial	Judge adequately cured potential prejudice; no mistrial warranted	No mistrial; trial judge acted within discretion and gave curative instructions
Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable given §5K2.0/3553(a) and 2L2.2 concerns	Sentence excessive given guidelines	Judge correctly varied/departed based on genocidal concealment and lies	Sentence upheld as within substantial discretion; no abuse of discretion
Whether sentencing improperly used facts from 2L2.2 ex post facto considerations	Guideline 2L2.2 could limit upward departure	Ex post facto concerns bar application	2L2.2 not applicable; judge relied on facts to support the sentence within discretion

Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) (establishes four independent elements for §1425(a) (misrepresentation, willfulness, materiality, procurement))
United States v. Mensah, 737 F.3d 789 (1st Cir. 2013) (discusses Kungys framework in context of §1425 evidence)
Polanco, 634 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2011) (sufficiency review and standard of review for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Acosta-Colón, 741 F.3d 179 (1st Cir. 2013) (illustrates credibility and witness evaluation standards in appellate review)
United States v. Doe, 741 F.3d 217 (1st Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings and mistrial decisions)