U.S. v. Phillips (10th Cir. 10/2/08)

McCONNELL Henry Brobry

The defendants were an immigration attorney and his paralegal/wife, who had filed an I-589 and ETA-750s by signing on behalf of their clients (without consent, apparently) - the latter, on 4/30/01, just before 245(i).  The CtApp found that the jury could reasonably have found Mr Phillips liable as an accomplice for his wife's actions, based on their more-than-paralegal relationship, his role as legal supervisor, and his involvement with one fake signature - but his status as solo practitioner would not have been enough.

However, counts charging forgery under 1546(a) were reversed, because 1546(a) doesn't apply to applications.

Section 1546(a) prohibits forgery of a document “prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States.” (emphasis added). As explained above, filling out the ETA-750 is the first out of three steps that must be completed before the alien can receive a visa under U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(I). It is this visa, not the ETA-750, that has been prescribed for entry into, and stay or employment within, the United States. An alien seeking to cross the border or to prove eligibility for employment would get nowhere by flashing an ETA-750. An ETA-750 is no more a “document prescribed for entry . . . or as evidence of authorized stay or employment” than an application for a credit card is a credit card.

The 10th Cir is thus in disagreement with the 4th Cir, which ruled to the contrary. United States v. Ryan-Webster, 353 F.3d 353, 357 (4th Cir. 2003).

Read opinion here: 

Comments

Add New Search

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.12

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.