United States v. Ortiz-Mendez
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3802
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Ortiz-Mendez, a foreign national, is married to U.S. citizen Rosales whose adjustment-of-status application was under scrutiny.
- An immigration adjudication officer referred the case to ICE to investigate possible sham marriage to evade immigration laws.
- Ortiz-Mendez and Rosales were charged with marriage fraud and conspiracy; Rosales pled guilty to marriage fraud.
- At trial, Rosales testified the marriage was a sham; other witnesses claimed an intent to evade immigration laws; Ortiz-Mendez testified she loved Rosales and intended to stay with him.
- Ortiz-Mendez proposed a jury instruction distinguishing a genuine life together from a sham; the district court rejected this and gave a standard instruction focusing on knowingly entering a marriage to evade immigration laws.
- Ortiz-Mendez was convicted; the Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed life-together instruction was required | Ortiz-Mendez argues it clarifies that a guilty party may exist without the other being guilty | Ortiz-Mendez argues the jury should be told lack of life-establishment is not required to convict | Not required; current charge already covers the issue |
| Whether the government must prove lack of intent to establish a life with the spouse | Ortiz-Mendez contends she cannot be convicted without showing no intent to establish a life | Government need only show intent to evade immigration laws, not lack of life-establishment | Court rejects defendant’s interpretation; government need prove only intent to evade immigration laws; adopts Seventh and Tenth Circuits |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Orji-Nwosu, 549 F.3d 1005 (5th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for jury-instruction abuse)
- United States v. John, 309 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2002) (test for defense-requested instructions)
- United States v. Darif, 446 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2006) (instruction on sham marriages not requiring lack of life-establishment)
- United States v. Islam, 418 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 2005) (life-establishment issue not required)
- United States v. Chowdhury, 169 F.3d 402 (6th Cir. 1999) (instruction on sham marriages)
- United States v. Yang, 603 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir. 2010) (life-establishment not required for sham marriage)
- Cho v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2005) (lacked requirement to prove lack of life-establishment)
- United States v. Orellana-Blanco, 294 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2002) (intent to establish a life together not element)