United States v. Welcome, 2:25-cr-00095

Five defendants were individually charged with willfully failing or refusing to file an application for alien registration, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1306(a).
The cases were consolidated for the court to determine probable cause after government proceeded via bill of information instead of indictment.
The statutory requirement (originally under the Alien Registration Act of 1940, now INA) obligates noncitizens present for at least 30 days to register; however, no clear method existed for undocumented aliens to register until April 2025.
A new form (Form G-325R) was created by DHS in March 2025, with effect from April 11, 2025, as a means for undocumented aliens to comply with the registration requirement.
At the probable cause hearings, the government could not show the defendants either knew of the duty to register or had the means to comply before the new form existed.
The court found no probable cause and dismissed the charges without prejudice, citing lack of willfulness and impossibility of compliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 1306(a) require subjective knowledge and willful refusal?	Government: "Willful" includes aliens here illegally who failed to register; knowledge of law not needed.	Defendants: "Willful" means knowledge of and intent to violate duty; lack of notice and no practical means to comply.	"Willfully" requires subjective knowledge or intent to evade duty; government must show that.
Was it possible for defendants to comply with the law prior to new form's issuance?	Government: Defendants could have used other existing forms or presented themselves for registration.	Defendants: No prescribed form existed for undocumented aliens until April 2025; compliance was impossible.	No vehicle existed for compliance until April 2025, so cannot show willful failure or refusal before then.
Should probable cause hearings be held for petty offenses charged by information?	Government objected to preliminary hearings, arguing not required and issue is clear.	Defense: Probable cause hearings needed due to lack of facts supporting willfulness.	Court held hearings, finding them necessary for fairness due to lack of probable cause.
Is the statute ambiguous such that lenity applies?	Government: Statute clear, code does not require heightened mens rea.	Defendants: Ambiguity and lack of notice require applying the rule of lenity.	Ambiguity and lack of notice support lenity; statute construed in favor of defendants.

Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (interprets "willfully" as requiring knowledge that conduct is unlawful, context-dependent)
Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) (in highly technical statutes, "willfully" requires knowledge of illegality, not just general intent or awareness)
United States v. Kay, 513 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2007) ("willfulness" may require knowledge of law in complex statutory schemes)