United States v. Xiaoying Tang Dowai
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18578
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Tang, a Chinese national, immigrated to Saipan in 2002 and worked in garment factories.
- She married Dowai in 2009 to obtain an immediate relative entry permit and stayed in Saipan after contract work ended.
- Tang obtained a green card by claiming she and Dowai lived together since 2009, though they did not.
- She was indicted in 2013 in the NMI District Court for conspiracy to defraud, visa fraud, and making a false statement; the jury convicted her on all counts.
- Tang argues the NMI District Court lacks Article III tenure and therefore cannot hear federal criminal cases.
- The panel affirms Tang’s conviction, holding the NMI District Court was properly established under Article IV and can hear federal criminal matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NMI District Court has authority to hear federal criminal cases under Article IV. | Tang contends the court is not Article III and questions Congress's authority. | Dowai argues Congress validly created an Article IV territorial court with criminal jurisdiction. | Yes; NMI District Court valid under Article IV and can hear federal criminal cases. |
| Whether Article IV courts require Article III tenure protections to try federal offenses. | Tang asserts Article III tenure and salary protections are required. | Dowai relies on Palmore and related precedents permitting non-Article III territorial courts to try federal offenses. | Article IV courts may adjudicate federal crimes without Article III tenure. |
| Whether Glidden/O’Donoghue limit Congress’s Article IV authority over territorial courts. | Tang cites Glidden and O’Donoghue as limiting Article IV authority over time. | Court rejects narrowing; Palmore controls and permits Article IV courts’ authority. | No limit found; Article IV authority remains valid for NMI District Court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69 (U.S. 2003) (NMI District Court is not an Article III court but an Article IV territorial court with similar jurisdiction)
- Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1973) (Article III tenure not required for territorial courts enforcing federal law)
- Glidden v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (U.S. 1962) (Article III status and territorial court authority discussed; not controlling here)
- O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (U.S. 1933) (Distinguishes District of Columbia from territories; salary/tenure concerns limited in scope)
- Commodity Futures Trading Comm. v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1986) (Guides evaluating delegation of adjudicative functions to non-Article III bodies; emphasizes substance over form)
- Atalig v. Com. of N. Mariana Islands, 723 F.2d 682 (9th Cir. 1984) (Recognizes CNMI’s unique relationship and Congress’s Article IV administration)