United States v. Chahla
| Decision Date | 21 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–12717.,13–12717. |
| Citation | 752 F.3d 939 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Antoun CHAHLA, Fadi Chahla, Mowafak Shahla, Defendants–Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Karin Bethany Hoppmann, Cherie Krigsman, Robert E. O'Neill, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, Arnold B. Corsmeier, Bonnie Ames Glober, U.S. Attorney's Office, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Fred Haddad, Fred Haddad, PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants–Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 3:11–cr–00098–TJC–TEM–3.
Before MARTIN and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY,* District Judge.
Mowafak, Antoun, and Fadi Chahla 1 are brothers from Syria. The Chahla brothers married two sisters, Victoria and Genetta Knight, as well a third woman, Brenda Pettit, who was (intermittently) related to Victoria and Genetta by way of her marriage to their brother. The government charged them all with fraudulently entering into these marriages for the purpose of allowing the brothers to gain more favorable immigration status. A jury convicted each of the three brothers of: (1) conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States and to defraud the United States ( 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001, and 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c)), and (2) unlawful procurement of citizenship or naturalization ( 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a))—all based on evidence of marriage fraud. This appeal followed. In addressing their appeal, we consider the brothers' challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on all counts; the District Court's failure to give three theory-of-defense jury instructions; and the denial of their motion for a mistrial. After review and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence after a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Isnadin, 742 F.3d 1278, 1303 (11th Cir.2014). This account reflects that view.
Mowafak came to the United States in 1995. In 1998 he was ordered to appear at removal proceedings because he had been convicted of a crime unrelated to this case. He approached Victoria Knight, who shopped regularly at a store he owned. Mowafak told her he was having immigration problems and might be deported. He asked Victoria if she would help him with his immigration troubles by marrying him. Victoria eventually agreed and they were married. However, Victoria and Mowafak never lived together. Indeed, about a month after they married, Victoria began dating Robert Vonshmidt, and she maintained her relationship to Mr. Vonshmidt throughout her marriage to Mowafak.
After she married Mowafak, Victoria filed an I–130 petition to sponsor his adjustment of status to become a Lawful Permanent Resident.2 Mowafak also filed a Form I–485 application to adjust his status based on his marriage to Victoria. Victoria and Mowafak went to interviews with immigration officials in support of Mowafak's application. They submitted photographs to show their marriage was bona fide. Mowafak told Victoria that immigration might ask questions about whether they really lived together and if they were happy to ensure they were not lying and that they were a “legal couple.” Mowafak paid Victoria $200 a month for a year and reimbursed her for lost wages when she attended appointments with immigration officials. In April 2002 they appeared before an immigration judge. Victoria testified in support of Mowafak and the judge granted his application for a waiver of his previous conviction and adjusted his status to become a Lawful Permanent Resident.
After the hearing, Victoria rarely saw Mowafak. Several months after he received his Lawful Permanent Resident status, Mowafak traveled to Syria and married a Syrian woman named “Mary.” Mowafak and Victoria were formally divorced in December 2005. Mowafak later applied for citizenship in July 2007, indicating he was eligible because he had been a Lawful Permanent Resident for at least five years.3
In 2002 Raymond Knight told his (and Victoria's) sister, Genetta, that there was a man who needed to become a citizen and needed Genetta to marry him. Shortly afterwards Antoun Chahla came to the United States on a student visa. He and Genetta were married about three weeks later. Almost immediately after the ceremony, Antoun left for Paris, and stayed for eight to nine months without Genetta.
After they were married, Genetta submitted a Form I–130 on Antoun's behalf and Antoun filed the corresponding I–485 application to adjust his status to become a Lawful Permanent Resident. In June 2006 Mowafak sent a letter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services claiming that he had been renting a house to Antoun and Genetta. But Genetta and Antoun never lived together. Genetta met with immigration officers twice to help Antoun. Antoun received permanent resident status in July 2006. He completed a Form N–400 to apply for citizenship three years later.
In 2000 or 2001, Brenda Pettit began dating Raymond Knight. A few years later, Raymond and Mowafak asked Brenda to marry the third Chahla brother, Fadi. Brenda eventually agreed to go to Syria to become engaged to Fadi and apply for a fiancé visa. Mowafak made all the arrangements, including travel, and directed Brenda's activities in Syria. Mowafak and Fadi took Brenda to a meeting with U.S. officials where she told them that she and Fadi were engaged and she wanted to bring him to the United States. In truth, Brenda had no romantic feelings for Fadi. Mowafak paid Brenda $500 before the trip and $500 afterward. After Brenda returned to the U.S. she wrote two letters to Fadi at Mowafak's direction. At trial Brenda testified that the statements in the letters-such as that she missed Fadi, that she wished she was there with him, that he was her love—were not true. Fadi's fiancé visa application was eventually denied.
After her trip to Syria, Brenda and Raymond got married. But Raymond continued to talk to Brenda about finishing what they had started with Fadi. Eventually Brenda agreed. Mowafak said he would pay her $1000 when she went to Syria to marry Fadi and then $1000 when she got back. Mowafak also paid the expenses related to Brenda's divorce from Raymond.
After she and Fadi were married in Syria, Brenda submitted a Form I–130 on Fadi's behalf. Fadi entered the United States in October 2006 and was given conditional status as a Lawful Permanent Resident. Mowafak began paying Brenda $300 a month for assisting Fadi with additional immigration matters. Later Brenda and Fadi filed a Form I–751 to remove the conditions from Fadi's residency.
In September 2009 Fadi applied for naturalization as Brenda's spouse. Just shy of a year later, Fadi and Brenda divorced. Because of the divorce, Fadi withdrew his naturalization application. Brenda then resumed her marriage to Raymond when she remarried him in January 2011.
At some point in or before 2008, federal officials began investigating the brothers' marriages. While the investigation was underway, Fadi continued to move forward with his immigration proceedings. But unknown to him, Brenda began cooperating with federal officials and she recorded a number of conversations she had with Mowafak and Fadi leading up at an immigration interview for Fadi that she was also to attend. These conversations showed Mowafak directing her and Fadi's preparations. Antoun also participated in one of the meetings.
Mowafak, Antoun, and Fadi were indicted in April 2011 in a seven-count indictment. The charges included (a) one count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the laws of the United States and to defraud the United States, which was made against all three brothers, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1001, and 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c); and (b) six counts of unlawful procurement of naturalization, two apiece for each brother individually, under 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a). For Mowafak and Antoun, one of the unlawful procurement of naturalization charges was based on false statements made on his application to become a Lawful Permanent Resident and the other was based on false statements made on his naturalization application. Fadi's unlawful procurement charges were based on his original Lawful Permanent Resident application and his later petition to remove the conditions from his Lawful Permanent Resident status (Form I–751).
The Chahlas pleaded not guilty and were tried before a jury in January and February 2013. The jury convicted all three Chahla brothers on the six remaining counts of the indictment.4 The Chahlas moved for a judgment of acquittal on all Counts at the close of the government's case and again at the close of all evidence. After the verdict, the Chahlas filed briefs to renew their motions for judgment of acquittal or alternatively request a new trial, which the District Court denied. The Chahlas then filed this appeal.
“We review de novo a District Court's denial of judgment of acquittal on sufficiency of evidence grounds, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, and drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in the Government's favor.” United States v. Capers, 708 F.3d 1286, 1296–97 (11th Cir.2013). “A jury's verdict cannot be overturned if any reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Herrera, 931 F.2d 761, 762 (11th Cir.1991). “The evidence need not be inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis except guilt, and the jury is free to choose between or among the reasonable conclusions to be drawn from the evidence presented at trial.” United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d 1389, 1391 (11th Cir.1989).
The Chahlas argue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Saab
... ... Saab's false statement in the March 2015 petition was ... made in a “matter relating to ... any law of the ... United States relating to naturalization.” 18 U.S.C ... § 1015(a). Cf. United States v. Chahla , 752 ... F.3d 939, 944, 948 (11th Cir. 2014) (upholding conviction ... under 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a), which criminalizes false ... statements made to “procure[] or attempt to procure[] ... naturalization, ” based on statements made on ... lawful permanent ... ...
-
United States v. Charles
...much more protection to the naturalized citizen. First, there is a statute of limitations of ten years. See United States v. Chahla, 752 F.3d 939, 946 n.6 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that 18 U.S.C. § 3291 provides a ten-year statute of limitations for violations of § 1425). Second, the governm......
-
Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co.
...a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative and the immigrant to file a Form I-485 Application to Adjust Status.12 United States v. Chahla , 752 F.3d 939, 942 n.2 (11th Cir. 2014). But even these immigration status adjustments are never simple. Instead, they are partially dependent on whether ......
-
United States v. Pegg
...law. We agree. We review a district court's refusal to give a particular jury instruction for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chahla, 752 F.3d 939, 948 (11th Cir. 2014). A district court abuses its discretion in denying a requested jury instruction if: (1) the instruction is correct; ......