United States v. Munyenyezi

Decision Date25 March 2015
Docket NumberNo. 13–1950.,13–1950.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Beatrice MUNYENYEZI, Defendant, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Mark E. Howard, with whom David W. Ruoff and Howard & Ruoff, PLLC, were on brief, for appellant.

Mark T. Quinlivan, Special Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Donald Feith, Acting United States Attorney, District of New Hampshire, and Carmen M. Ortiz, United States Attorney, District of Massachusetts, were on brief, for appellee.

Before LYNCH, Chief Judge, THOMPSON and BARRON, Circuit Judges.

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

Overview1

Man's inhumanity to man is limitless. Any doubt, just recall the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Over the course of 100 days, roving bands of Hutus (Rwanda's majority ethnic group) slaughtered hundreds of thousands of their countrymen, most of them Tutsis (a minority group long-dominant in Rwanda). Some of the crazed killers belonged to the Interahamwe, the dreaded militia of a Hutu political party known by the initials, MRND.2 About 7,000 Rwandans died each day, often butchered by machete-wielding Interahamwes at roadblocks set up to catch fleeing Tutsis. And these killers didn't just kill—they raped, tortured, and disfigured too.

Now meet Beatrice Munyenyezi, a Hutu from Rwanda. She spent the genocide months (pregnant with twin girls) living at the Hotel Ihuriro in Butare, Rwanda—a hotel managed by her husband, Shalom Ntahobali, and owned by her mother-in-law, Pauline Nyiramasuhuko. Ntahobali and Nyiramasuhuko were no ordinary hoteliers, however. He was an Interahamwe leader who manned a notorious roadblock in front of the hotel. She was a high-powered minister in Rwanda's MRND government who kicked-off the killing frenzy there by telling the party's devotees that all Tutsi “cockroaches” must die. And Hutu thugs ultimately massacred more than 100,000 Tutsis in and around Butare.

Munyenyezi fled to Kenya in the genocide's waning days. Hoping to come to the United States as a refugee, she filled out immigration form I–590 in 1995, writing “none” when asked to list “political, professional or social organizations” that she had been a member of or affiliated with since her “16th birthday.”3 She also affirmed there that she had neither committed a crime of moral turpitude nor persecuted people on grounds of race, religion, or politics. Asked on another form whether she was personally affected by the “atrocities” in Rwanda—“Were you a victim? A witness? Were you otherwise involved?”she simply wrote “family members disappeared.” And she answered “no” to the question whether she either had a hand in killing or injuring persons during the genocide or had encouraged others to do so. The government approved her papers in 1996, and she moved to the United States in 1998.

About a year later Munyenyezi applied to change her status to lawful permanent resident. One question on her application asked her to jot down her “present and past membership in or affiliation with every political organization, association, ... party, club, society or similar group” since turning 16. She wrote “none.” She also checked “no” in answer to the questions whether she had ever committed a crime of moral turpitude and whether she had anything to do with genocide or with killing or injuring persons because of their race, ethnicity, religion, or politics. The government approved her application in 2001.

In 2003 Munyenyezi applied for naturalization as an American citizen, declaring that the answers in her form N–400—a naturalization form—were truthful. Answers on that form included that she had (a) never been associated with any organization, party, club, or the like; (b) never done a crime leading to her arrest or conviction; and (c) never lied to or misled federal officials to get immigration benefits.

She became a naturalized citizen later that year.

In 2006 Munyenyezi testified at an international criminal court—commonly called the ICTR—as a witness for her husband (he was being prosecuted for his role in the Rwandan genocide).4 There she said that she saw no roadblock near her family's hotel or dead bodies in Butare, and she also said that her husband was no génocidaire. Just a few short months after she testified, the federal government pulled her immigration file to check for any illegalities.

Convinced that she had concealed her role in the Rwandan genocide—her part in the killings and rapes at the roadblock next to the Hotel Ihuriro, and her ties to the MRND and the Interahamwe—federal prosecutors later indicted Munyenyezi in 2010 on two counts of procuring citizenship illegally by making false statements to the government. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1425(a) and (b). Her first trial ended in a hung jury. A second trial resulted in convictions. Using the 2002 edition of the federal sentencing guidelines, the judge then sentenced her to two concurrent 120–month prison terms.

On appeal Munyenyezi challenges the sufficiency of the proof against her, contests an evidentiary ruling, alleges prosecutorial misconduct, and questions the reasonableness of her sentence. We address each issue in turn, presenting only those facts needed to put matters into perspective. And at the end of it all, we find no reason to reverse.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

As promised, we lead off with Munyenyezi's claim that the evidence is insufficient for a sensible jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that she infracted sections 1425(a) and (b). Hers is an uphill fight, however. See, e.g., Polanco, 634 F.3d at 45. Reviewing the record de novo —because (as the government concedes) she preserved the argument below—and taking the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most helpful to the prosecution, we see whether she has shown (as she must) that no rational jury could have convicted her. See id. And so doing, we take special care to remember our long list of “cannots”: we cannot reweigh the evidence, second-guess the jury on credibility issues (actually, we must assume it resolved credibility disputes consistent with the verdict), or consider the relative merits of her theories of innocence (because what matters is not whether a jury reasonably could have acquitted but whether it could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). See id.; see also United States v. Acosta–Colón, 741 F.3d 179, 191 (1st Cir.2013).

Section 1425(a) makes it a crime for a person to “knowingly procure [ ] or attempt[ ] to procure ... citizenship” illegally. One way to do that is to make false statements in a naturalization application. See 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a). And—according to our judicial superiors—there are “four independent requirements” for a section 1425(a) crime: “the naturalized citizen must have misrepresented or concealed some fact, the misrepresentation or concealment must have been willful, the fact must have been material, and the naturalized citizen must have procured citizenship as a result of the misrepresentation or concealment.” Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 767, 108 S.Ct. 1537, 99 L.Ed.2d 839 (1988) ; see also United States v. Mensah, 737 F.3d 789, 808–09 (1st Cir.2013) (discussing Kungys in exquisite detail). Section 1425(a)'s next-door neighbor, section 1425(b), makes it a crime for a person to “knowingly ... procure ... naturalization ... or citizenship” that she is not entitled to. One must have good moral character to be eligible for citizenship, of course. See 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). And two of the many things that negate good character are (unsurprisingly) helping commit genocide, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(9), and making materially false statements to score immigration or naturalization benefits, see id. § 1101(f)(6).

Viewed from a prosecution-friendly perspective, the record in Munyenyezi's case is a bone-chilling read. Consider the following examples, taken from the testimony of government witnesses:

Richard Kamanzi told the jury that in March 1994 (about a month before the genocide, when he was 15 years old) he saw Munyenyezi (he had seen her before) decked out in MRND clothing, hanging out with 45 other MRNDers near the Hotel Ihuriro. He did not see her during the genocide, though.

But Vestine Nyiraminani did. She testified that in April 1994 she and her sister got stopped at the roadblock near the Hotel Ihuriro. An “Interahamwe named Beatrice”—a person Nyiraminani knew was married to Shalom Ntahobali—asked for IDs.5 Seeing that their cards identified them as Tutsis, Munyenyezi ordered them to sit at the side of the road with other Tutsis. A half hour later, soldiers marched them into the woods. One of the thugs then plunged a knife into Nyiraminani's sister's head. Nyiraminani escaped. But she never saw her sister again.

Jean Paul Rutaganda testified about a time in April 1994 when (as a 15 year old) he and some other Tutsis hid at an Episcopal school near the Hotel Ihuriro. Rutaganda spotted Munyenyezi (he knew her by name) at the roadblock with Interahamwes, wearing an MRND uniform, asking for identity cards, and writing in a notebook. She was counting,” Rutaganda said, “registering dead Tutsis and others who were not yet dead.” Tutsis, he added, “were killed day and night” in the nearby forest—something he knew from the “screaming” and the “crying.”

Tutsi Consolee Mukeshimana also saw Munyenyezi around this time. Mukeshimana had seen her before (at Mukeshimana's sister's house). And at the roadblock Mukeshimana watched a fatigues-wearing Munyenyezi check IDs and lead Tutsis to other “Interahamwe so they could get killed.”

Desperate to leave Butare because of the killing, Tutsi Vincent Sibomana tried to run but got detained at the roadblock. Munyenyezi asked for an ID. He knew who she was because he had seen her buy beer at a store where he had worked. And he had also seen an MRND-shirt-wearing Munyenyezi walking around Butare. Anyhow, Sibomana was too young to have an ID card, apparently (he was only 14). An irate Interahamwe hit his head with a rifle butt. And he fell into a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • United States v. Nepal, 17-10228
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 27, 2018
    ...before reviewed the conviction of a non-citizen applicant who unlawfully procured his own citizenship.6 See United States v. Munyenyezi , 781 F.3d 532, 536 (1st Cir. 2015) ; United States v. Latchin , 554 F.3d 709, 712–15 (7th Cir. 2009) ; United States v. Alferahin , 433 F.3d 1148, 1154–56......
  • United States v. Ponzo
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • April 7, 2017
    ...the sufficiency of the evidence, we recite the facts in the light most favorable to the government. See United States v. Munyenyezi , 781 F.3d 532, 534 n.1 (1st Cir. 2015).2 For example, one time Ponzo entered a restaurant, demanded repayment of a $25,000 loan owed to a loan shark, and thre......
  • United States v. Rivera-Carrasquillo, s. 14-1582
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • August 2, 2019
    ...mistrial motion for abuse of discretion, which occurs if no reasonable person could agree with the ruling.10 See United States v. Munyenyezi, 781 F.3d 532, 541 (1st Cir. 2015). Deference is appropriate here because the judge was best positioned to decide if what happened was serious enough ......
  • United States v. Cox
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 20, 2017
    ...right to a jury trial prohibit the finding of sentencing facts by a preponderance of the evidence. See , e.g. , United States v. Munyenyezi , 781 F.3d 532, 544 (1st Cir. 2015) ("[A] judge can find facts for sentencing purposes by a preponderance of the evidence, so long as those facts do no......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Preliminary Sections
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • May 5, 2022
    ...previously established or even testified to by Witn… Ques misleading b/c infers truth of assumed facts 403 , §414; U.S. v. Munyenyezi , 781 F.3d 532 (1st 2015) Atty/Client Priv O, 501 Atty/Client Priv Most sacred Priv of all, foundation of protecting professional legal representation 501 ; ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT