Posts Tagged ‘immigration’

Owner of La Verne Flight School Arrested on Visa Fraud Charges

Thursday, December 1st, 2011

LOS ANGELES – A woman who operates a flight school in La Verne was arrested this morning on federal charges that allege she oversaw a visa fraud scheme that allowed foreign nationals from Egypt, Sri Lanka and Taiwan to enter the United States for commercial pilot training at her school, even though it was not approved to train foreign students.

Karena Chuang, 28, of Lake Elsinore, the owner of Blue Diamond Aviation, was arrested this morning without incident by special agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). Chuang is charged with visa fraud in a criminal complaint filed November 17 in United States District Court.

The criminal complaint alleges Chuang helped foreign nationals obtain visas to attend flight schools approved to train foreign students when the students actually intended to enroll at Blue Diamond Aviation, which was not approved to enroll foreign nationals in its pilot training program. Chuang recruited students by offering lower tuition and a shorter training program than those offered by the authorized flight schools.

Foreign nationals who want to obtain commercial pilot training in the United States are required to obtain an M-1 student visa. To obtain this visa, a potential student must first apply to a flight training school that has been certified by the U.S. government to enroll foreign students. If the student meets the admission requirements, the flight school issues a Form I-20 that certifies the alien is eligible for the student visa. The Form I-20 is used to apply for an M-1 visa.

(more…)

Tags: , ,
Posted in California Defense Attorney | No Comments »

FORMER SUPERVISOR AT U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS ON BRIBERY AND FRAUD CHARGES

Thursday, August 18th, 2011

LOS ANGELES – A former supervisor with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and his son were sentenced today to 60 months and 48 months, respectively, on federal corruption charges.

Fernando Jacobs, 72, of Upland, and Patrick Jacobs, 44, of Ontario, were sentenced by United States District Judge George H. King.  Judge King also ordered Fernando Jacobs to pay a $30,000 fine. Fernando Jacobs was remanded into custody to begin serving his prison sentence immediately.  Patrick Jacobs has been in custody since his arrest in December 2009.

Fernando Jacobs, who was a supervisory immigration services officer with USCIS, and his son, Patrick Jacobs were convicted by a jury of conspiracy, bribery and honest services wire fraud.  Additionally, Fernando Jacobs was also convicted of visa fraud.

The evidence presented during the two-week trial in United States District Court in April showed that Fernando Jacobs accepted bribes in exchange for helping aliens seeking status in the United States and that his son acted as a middleman brokering deals with the aliens.

The evidence showed that Fernando Jacobs and his son engaged in a scheme to defraud USCIS of Fernando Jacobs’ honest services by using Fernando Jacobs’ authority and official position to enrich themselves by receiving payments in return for expediting processing of immigration case files, obtaining and providing immigration information from Department of Homeland Security immigration databases, and obtaining and providing I-551 stamps that authorize aliens to travel to and from the United States. As part of the scheme, Fernando Jacobs fraudulently procured passport stamps for two Mexican nationals that allowed them to travel to and from the United States.

During today’s sentencing hearing, Judge King said that Fernando Jacobs “sold out his office for money” and that he did so “because he wanted money and he was greedy.”

Tags: , ,
Posted in California Defense Attorney | 1 Comment »

SAN FERNANDO VALLEY MAN ARRESTED IN VISA FRAUD SCHEME

Thursday, June 9th, 2011

LOS ANGELES – Federal authorities have arrested a West Hills man on visa fraud charges for allegedly filing bogus paperwork on behalf of businesses seeking temporary work visas, as well as charging prospective immigrants in Mexico thousands of dollars for visas.

Carlos Alberto Silva, 29, of West Hills, was arrested Tuesday at his business in Canoga Park by special agents with the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A criminal complaint filed Tuesday in United States District Court charges Silva with visa fraud. The complaint alleges that Silva, who operated Silva and Associates in Canoga Park, submitted fraudulent employment-based immigration petitions on behalf of legitimate business to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the United States Department of Labor to obtain work visas for alien workers. As part of the scheme, Silva allegedly also was involved with Mexican recruitment agencies that charged aliens approximately 50,000 pesos – $3,000 to $4,000 – to seek visas that would allow them to enter the United States.

“We are committed to prosecuting notarios who operate as scam artists and victimize the most vulnerable among us – the hard-working men and women in our immigrant communities,” said United States Attorney André Birotte Jr.

According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, Silva held himself out as an attorney and offered legal services to businesses that needed help hiring unskilled temporary alien workers. However, from mid-2008 through the end of 2009, Silva allegedly filed on behalf of his clients fraudulent petitions that falsely claimed the businesses needed more employees – and more work visas – than the businesses actually had requested from Silva. Filing petitions with inflated numbers is known as “benching.”

While he was operating Silva and Associates, Silva was also involved in several Mexico-based recruitment agencies with names such as “InterAmerica,” “American Jobs” and “American Employment Agency Mexico SC.” These businesses charged aliens approximately 50,000 pesos – $3,000 to $4,000 – each to seek visas on their behalf. Federal regulations prohibit the approval of work-based immigration visa petitions if the alien pays a job-placement or other recruiting fee. The complaint alleges that Silva did not disclose the payments by the aliens in the fraudulent petitions filed with USCIS.

At his initial court appearance yesterday afternoon (June 8, 2010), Silva was freed on a $40,000 bond. He is scheduled to be arraigned in the federal case on July 5.

A criminal complaint contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.

The complaint charges Silva with visa fraud, a felony offense that carries a statutory maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in California Defense Attorney | 1 Comment »

Ninth Circuit Opinions 04-26-11

Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

US v. Sandoval_Gonzalez, No. 09-50446 (4-25-11)(Reinhardt with Kozinski and Wardlaw). In a 1326 prosecution, is “derivative citizenship” an affirmative defense? No, answers the 9th. In this prosecution, the defendant, who was born in Mexico but whose father was an American citizen, cross-examined an agent about derivative citizenship. The gov’t argued that it was improper, and at jury instruction time, took up the court’s invitation to argue that there was a presumption that a person born abroad was an alien. Only one thing wrong with such a presumption: it was wrong. The gov’t had to prove alienage as an element. A presumption of alienage shifted the burden to the defendant. Derivative citizenship, moreover, is not an affirmative defense; it goes to proof of the alienage. The error was not harmless. However, the defendant does not get a Rule 29 acquittal.

Miller v. Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, No. 07-36086 (4-25-11)(Burns, D.J. S.D, Calif., with Paez and Clifton). The 9th finds that an Oregon statute does indeed create a liberty interest in early eligibility for parole. Although there is a liberty interest, under Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859 (2011), a federal court only looks to whether procedural due process was followed rather than whether the decision as to eligibility was correct. Oregon gave procedural due process

Tags: , ,
Posted in California Appeals Attorney | No Comments »

Ninth Circuit Opinions 04-08-11

Friday, April 8th, 2011

1.  US vs. Delgado-Ramos, No. 09-50580 (4-7-11)(Per curiam with Rymer, Callahan, and Rymer; concurrence by Rymer).  Padilla vs. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) requires defense counsel to advise on immigration consequences.  Shouldn’t a court, taking a plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, have to inform the defendant of the immigration consequences?  Didn’t Padilla overrule prior 9th Cir precedent?  The 9th answers “no” and “no.” The defendant entered a 1326 plea before Padilla.  He now argues that he should have been informed by the court of the immigration consequences. Under a plain error review, the 9th finds that Padilla did not overturn US vs. Amador-Leal, 276 F.3d 511 (9th Cir. 2002).  Padilla focused on sixth amendment ineffectiveness of counsel.  As such, Padilla is different from the due process fairness analysis of a guilty plea.  Moreover, a court is focused on the plea to the charge; the court cannot control another agency’s decision.  The court must advise of the direct consequences, but not all collateral consequences.  As such, a court is not required to advise of immigration consequences.  Concurring, Rymer writes that defendant would be unable to prove prejudice under any analysis.

2.  US vs. Greer, No. 09-10095 (4-7-11)(Bybee with Schroeder; dissent by Panner, Sr. D.J., D. Ore.)  The defendant was a Las Vegas truck driver who delivered bales of shredded  paper to be recycled.  One problem:  some papers (about 50 lbs worth) hadn’t been recycled.  They contained information from casinos’ customers –  really really confidential stuff. The defendant later testified he thought he “was retiring from trucking that day” because he could get money for them.  He then tried to get the casinos to pay him for the recovery.  The gov’t charged him with extortion (his efforts make amusing reading).  He was convicted of extortion under the Hobbs Act and of racketeering.  On appeal, he argues that the gov’t improperly asked him on cross-examination if gov’t witnesses were lying. The 9th, under plain error review, sidesteps, saying  that the error wasn’t so clear that the court should have recognized it without an objection. The tougher issue was with the jury instructions.  The court gave a general instruction that the gov’t doesn’t have to prove the defendant knew his actions were unlawful.  This was paired up with an element’s instruction that stated that the defendant acted with the intent to obtain money he knew he was not entitled to receive.  Again under plain error review, the 9th determined that there wasn’t a risk of confusion.  The general instruction was the for the “ignorance of the law” while the element mens rea was for knowing what the acts were.  Moreover, no circuit has held that specific intent was required and one circuit, the 6th, held that it was not.  The 9th defers ruling on that issue; under plain error, there wasn’t error.  Dissenting, Panner argues that there was confusion, and error, because the knowing/not knowing clashed.

3.  US vs. Ewing, No. 10-50131 (4-7-11)(Ripple (7th Cir.) with Pregerson and Graber).  The 9th upholds a search, finding that there was probable cause, under a totality of circumstances, to search a car and the contraband (counterfeit bills) within it.  Here, the police pulled a car over for expired tags.  Approaching the car, the officer asked if anyone was on probation and parole.  One passenger said “yes” and when the officer “conversed” with him, the officer noticed folded bills stuffed in the weather-stripping of the window.  Why, wonder the officer, was there money sticking out the window?  No one said it was there money.  The officer noted that the serial numbers on the 20’s were the same.  Later, one of the passengers said that defendant had been making counterfeit bills and described the circumstances. In searching the car, with consent of the owner, counterfeiting equipment and material were found.  The district court upheld the search.  The 9th did likewise.  First, the 9th did find that the gov’t had waived the standing issue (the defendant was not the owner of the car).  Second, the 9th held that the officer had probable cause to search the car under the circumstances: the passengers appeared nervous; the officer saw money in the weather-stripping, it was an odd place to store bills, and the officer believed that it was related to drug trafficking, and that one passenger appeared under the influence of a stimulant, and he was on parole.  Since the officer had probable cause to search the car, he could search the contents, which included unfolding the money (revealing the identical serial numbers).

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in California Appeals Attorney | No Comments »

Ninth Circuit Opinions 03-12-11

Saturday, March 12th, 2011

US vs. Bonilla, No. 09-10307 (3-11-11)(Reinhardt with Berzon and Pollak, Sr. D.J., E.D. Pa).  In Padilla, the Supremes made clear that the defendant must be advised of the immigration consequences to a guilty plea. Here, the defendant, a legal resident who had been in the country thirty years, faced a count of possessing an unregistered firearm and being a felon in possession.  He had mental issues, and so his wife (a US citizen) frequently spoke for him.

He asked his lawyer what the immigration consequences were, and she said probably deportation.  After he pled straight up, he learned that he was facing certain deportation for agg felonies.  He then moved to withdraw his guilty plea.  the district court denied the plea, stating that he knew there would be some consequences.  On appeal, the 9th reversed and remanded.  The 9th stressed that the standard for moving to withdraw was a “fair and just” reason, which was to be liberally construed.  Here, the defendant and his wife inquired about the consequences before the plea, and were not told of the dire consequences; it was only afterwards that the full extent of the consequences of the guilty plea came through.  Moreover, the defendant plead straight up, and so did not receive some great benefit in accepting a plea.

The fact that court felt that the defendant would have pled guilty anyway doesn’t cut it. Padilla is clear that the real consequences of the plea must be disclosed. Although the lawyer failed to get him the information, believing he was a citizen, the lawyer did come through afterwards and admitted a mistake.

US vs. Kohring, No. 08-30170 (3-11-11)(Thomas with Tashima, partial concurrence and partial dissent by B. Fletcher).  The defendant here was a former state representative charged and convicted of public corruption as part of the undercover operation that also involved Senator Ted Stevens. Stevens had his charges dismissed because of the gov’t’s withholding of Brady and Giglio evidence.

While this case was on appeal, and the Stevens mess came out, the gov’t disclosed information, and suggested that the case be  remanded for the Brady.  The 9th remanded for the district court to see if there was a Brady violation, and whether it was prejudicial.  The district court found in fact that Brady was withheld, but considered it immaterial because it didn’t go to the actual bribery.

On appeal, the 9th reversed and remanded for a new trial.  The 9th noted that the Brady information went to the character of the chief cooperating witness (Allen), his motives, bias, ability to remember, truthfulness, and there was also evidence that exculpated the defendant.  The 9th wrote a treatise on how this evidence could (and should) be used.  B. Fletcher concurred, and only dissented because she thought the withholding was flagrant and intentional, and she would dismiss with prejudice.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in California Appeals Attorney | No Comments »

Criminal Defense Attorneys must advise clients on the impact on deportation before pleading guilty

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

United States Supreme Court holds that Criminal Defense Attorneys must correctly advise their clients about the effect of a criminal conviction on deportation before pleading guilty.  Padilla v. Kentucky   http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-651.pdf

Petitioner Padilla, a lawful permanent resident of the United States for over 40 years, faces deportation after pleading guilty to drugdistribution charges in Kentucky. In postconviction proceedings, heclaims that his counsel not only failed to advise him of his consequence before he entered the plea, but also told him not to worry about deportation since he had lived in this country so long. He alleges that he would have gone to trial had he not received this incorrect advice. The Kentucky Supreme Court denied Padilla postconviction relief on the ground that the Sixth Amendment’s effective assistance-of-counsel guarantee does not protect defendants from erroneous deportation advice because deportation is merely a “collateral” consequence of a conviction.

Held: Because counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation, Padilla has sufficiently alleged that his counselwas constitutionally deficient. Whether he is entitled to relief depends on whether he has been prejudiced, a matter not addressed here. The Court held that changes to immigration law have dramatically raised thestakes of a noncitizen’s criminal conviction.

While once there was only a narrow class of deportable offenses and judges wielded broad discretionary authority to prevent deportation, immigration reforms have expanded the class of deportable offenses and limited judges’authority to alleviate deportation’s harsh consequences. Because the drastic measure of deportation or removal is now virtually inevitable for a vast number of noncitizens convicted of crimes, the importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important.

(more…)

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Los Angeles Criminal attorney | 3 Comments »