United States v. Wei Lin
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25608
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Wei Lin, a Chinese national, obtained two authentic CNMI driver's licenses unlawfully (first by bribery; second via a false affidavit claiming loss).
- Lin was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) (fraud/misuse of immigration-related documents) for possessing those licenses, and under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) for making false statements to a federal agent.
- At trial Lin conceded he knew the licenses were unlawfully obtained but argued a CNMI driver's license is not a document covered by § 1546(a).
- The government argued a driver’s license falls within § 1546(a)’s “other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States.”
- The district court convicted Lin on both counts; on appeal the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether § 1546(a) covers driver’s licenses and whether evidence supported the § 1001 conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a CNMI driver’s license is a document covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) | Driver’s license is not prescribed by statute/regulation as evidence of entry, authorized stay, or employment; thus § 1546(a) does not apply | Driver’s license is an "other document" because employers may use it in IRCA verification, so § 1546(a) covers it | The court held § 1546(a) does not cover CNMI driver’s licenses; reversed convictions under § 1546(a) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (false statement) | The agent’s question about "identification documents" was vague/poorly translated and no proof license was on Lin’s person when he denied having ID | The sequence of events plus production of a photocopy and later discovery of the license in his wallet support an inference Lin had the license and knowingly lied | The court held a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; § 1001 conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Krstic, 558 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2009) (interpreting § 1546(a) scope)
- Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009) (avoidance of surplusage in statutory interpretation)
- Johnson v. United States, 206 F.2d 806 (9th Cir. 1953) (indictment that does not state a crime may be challenged on appeal)
- United States v. Lo, 231 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2000) (procedural rule allowing certain legal challenges on appeal)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- United States v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1993) (permitted scope of prosecutor’s reasonable inferences in closing)