United States v. Zavkibeg Ashurov, 726 F.3d 395

Ashurov, a Tajik national, sought an F-1 visa via Form I-20 certified under penalty of perjury by a school official but not sworn by Ashurov; later forms were signed by Ashurov but not sworn, while the school certified them under penalty of perjury.
The government charged Ashurov under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) for knowingly presenting a false statement; district court later acquitted based on oath requirement applicability and lenity.
Ashurov’s I-20s were tied to CMG School, whose designated official certified them; 2010-forms were submitted with Ashurov’s signatures but not sworn by him.
CMG School’s records later showed insufficient instruction hours, leading to investigation and the school’s closure; the probationary period raised questions about the accuracy of the statements.
Ashurov was originally charged with “knowingly making under oath” a false statement, but a superseding indictment charged only “knowingly presenting” a false statement; a jury convicted on the 2010 form, but the district court entered a judgment of acquittal.
The government appeals, arguing the “knowingly presents” clause does not require an oath; the court finds the statute grievously ambiguous and applies the rule of lenity to affirm the acquittal in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the ‘knowingly presents’ clause require an oath?	Khalje reading supports no oath requirement.	Ashurov contends oath is required by the clause.	Ambiguity; lenity applied to affirm acquittal.
Does the word ‘such’ in the presenting clause incorporate the oath element from the making clause?	Government reading—no oath necessary.	Ashurov argues ‘such’ refers to the full foregoing terms including oath.	Ambiguity; lenity applies.
Should textual canons resolve the clause in favor of oath incorporation?	Last antecedent favors government.	Last antecedent contradicted by surplusage and other canons.	Ambiguity persists; lenity applied.
Do the statute’s structure and amendments clarify the oath requirement?	Structural/1996 amendments support present reading.	Amendments inconclusive for oath inclusion.	Ambiguity remains; lenity applied.
What is the governing interpretation given ambiguity and notice concerns?	Government seeks broader punishment.	Violates fair notice.	Rule of lenity; uphold acquittal.

United States v. Khalje, 658 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1981) (presenting false statements subject to oath distinction questioned)
Barber v. Thomas, 130 S. Ct. 2499 (Supreme Court 2010) (rule of lenity requires fair notice; ambiguity triggers lenity)
McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25 (1931) (last antecedent rule may be overcome by other meaning indicators)
United States v. Krstic, 558 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2010) (addressed similar issue of oath requirement in 1546(a))
Tippins v. USX Corp., 37 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1994) (last antecedent rule applicability)
United States v. Ashurov, 2012 WL 1719778 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (district court decision discussed for textual analysis)