United States v. Tamie Samuels
874 F.3d 1032
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- In March 2015 Tamie Samuels filed Form I-130 for her husband Randell, and answered “no” to whether she had ever filed a prior petition, though she had filed an I-130 in 1997 on behalf of a prior husband.
- USCIS interviewed Samuels and Randell in June 2015 and approved the 2015 petition; the officer testified that disclosure of prior I-130s is a fraud indicator that prompts investigation.
- Homeland Security investigators later interviewed Samuels (Sept. 2015) as part of a passport fraud probe; agents testified Samuels admitted she had filed the 1997 I-130 and said she thought she had cancelled it, though no cancellation exists in agency records.
- A jury convicted Samuels of knowingly making a false statement in an immigration matter under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a); district court sentenced her to 3 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release.
- Samuels moved for judgment of acquittal arguing insufficient evidence that the statement was knowingly false and that the falsehood was material; the district court denied the motion and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowingly false statement — whether government proved she acted knowingly | Samuels: long passage of time, lack of counsel, divorce, and nonissuance of visa in 1997 support reasonable belief petition was canceled (no knowing falsity) | Government: admissions to investigators and lack of any cancellation support that she knew the 1997 I-130 existed when she answered “no” | Court: Sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find she knowingly made the false statement (admissions shortly after filing supported knowledge) |
| Materiality — whether the false statement concerned a material fact under §1546(a) | Samuels: officer’s testimony misstated statute; prior petition disclosure would not have barred future petitions, so nondisclosure was not material to the 2015 petition | Government: materiality measured by capacity to influence USCIS inquiries/decisions; concealing prior I-130s can impede investigation and influence adjudication | Court: Affirmed materiality — falsehood capable of influencing USCIS; even if officer erred about consequences, disclosure would have prompted inquiry that could affect decisions |
| Whether materiality is law or fact and whether Samuels preserved challenge | Samuels: implicitly treats materiality as legal question (argues statute shows nondisclosure immaterial) | Government: preserved jury question; district court instructed jury on materiality; defendant did not raise the legal challenge below | Court: Discussed split in precedents; Samuels forfeited a post-verdict legal challenge, and materiality properly submitted to jury or at least established under the instruction given |
| Sufficiency standard of review on appeal | Samuels: evidence insufficient as matter of law | Government: evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict supports conviction | Court: Reviewed de novo and affirmed conviction under that standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (materiality test: concealments have a natural tendency to influence agency decisions; discussion whether materiality is law or fact)
- United States v. Causevic, 636 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and materiality instruction precedent)
- United States v. Hirani, 824 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2016) (false statement material if it tends to impede agency inquiry)
- United States v. Dockter, 58 F.3d 1284 (8th Cir. 1995) (definition of "knowingly" for false-statement offenses)