United States v. George
2015 WL 774576, 779 F.3d 113, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2800 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of 'harboring' an illegal alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 requires conduct intended both to substantially facilitate the alien's remaining in the U.S. and to prevent the alien's detection by immigration authorities. A criminal forfeiture is unconstitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment only if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant's offense, considering the essence of the crime, the defendant's culpability, maximum penalties, and harm caused.
Facts:
- In October 2005, Annie George hired Valsamma Mathai as a live-in domestic worker, despite knowing that Mathai, an Indian national, would lose her legal immigration status upon accepting this employment outside of her G5 visa.
- For over five years, from 2005 to 2011, Mathai worked for George long hours, seven days a week, performing various domestic tasks and caring for five children, while being paid significantly less than the promised $1,000 per month.
- George never filed the legally required employment forms (W-2, W-3, W-4, 1099) for Mathai with the Internal Revenue Service.
- George instructed Mathai not to discuss her immigration status with others and to falsely represent herself as a visiting family friend if asked about her presence, and discouraged her from traveling to India due to potential arrest and deportation.
- In April 2011, Mathai's son contacted a human trafficking hotline, which led federal agents to George's Rexford, New York home in May 2011 to remove Mathai.
- Upon the agents' arrival, George delayed Mathai's departure for nearly two hours, at one point taking her into the basement before later pushing her out a side door and refusing her re-entry to retrieve her possessions.
- Following Mathai's removal, George effectively admitted in recorded phone calls with Mathai's son that she knew Mathai's status was illegal and had instructed her to lie to authorities to avoid George being charged with a 'big crime.'
Procedural Posture:
- On July 25, 2012, a grand jury in the Northern District of New York returned a one-count indictment charging Annie George with harboring an illegal alien with the aggravating purpose of private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (a)(1)(B)(i).
- After a five-day trial, a jury found George guilty of harboring but acquitted her of the private-gain penalty enhancement.
- George moved for a judgment of acquittal on the harboring charge notwithstanding the verdict, arguing insufficient evidence, which the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Gary L. Sharpe, Chief Judge) denied in a memorandum decision dated June 27, 2013.
- On July 10, 2013, the district court entered a judgment sentencing George to five years’ probation with eight months’ home confinement and ordered the forfeiture of her Rexford, New York residence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II).
- Annie George, as Defendant-Appellant, filed a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Did the district court commit plain error in instructing the jury on the meaning of 'harboring' under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 by allegedly failing to clearly require evidence of concealment, in light of United States v. Vargas-Cordon? 2. Was there sufficient evidence to prove that Annie George harbored an illegal alien with the intent to prevent detection by law enforcement authorities? 3. Does the forfeiture of Annie George's residence for harboring an illegal alien violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines?
Opinions:
Majority - Reena Raggi
1. No, the district court did not commit plain error in its jury instruction on 'harboring' because, when viewed as a whole, it adequately conveyed the requisite concealment aspect of the crime, despite stating that 'harboring' simply meant 'to afford shelter to.' The instruction further clarified that sheltering meant to 'shield from detection, to act in a way that prevents the authorities from learning of the fact that an alien is in the United States illegally,' thereby aligning with the 'evading detection' common core of meaning established in United States v. Vargas-Cordon. The court also correctly stated that secret or clandestine action by the defendant was not required, only an intent to conceal the alien. Furthermore, any technical misdescription of the 'harboring' element was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of George's intent to prevent Mathai's detection. 2. No, there was sufficient evidence to prove George harbored Mathai with the intent to prevent detection by law enforcement authorities. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated George's knowledge of Mathai's illegal status, her hiring of Mathai without proper authorization, her persistent failure to file required employment forms (providing circumstantial evidence of intent), her specific instructions to Mathai to lie about her status and presence, her efforts to delay agents during Mathai's removal, and her post-discovery admissions and attempts to obstruct by urging Mathai to lie. These actions plainly diminished the likelihood of government authorities discovering Mathai's illegal presence, thus constituting proscribed harboring. 3. No, the forfeiture of George's residence does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines because it is not grossly disproportional to the gravity of her offense. Applying the Bajakajian/Castello factors, the court found: (1) George's crime was a deliberate and sustained thwarting of federal immigration law, involving exploitation of alien labor and evasion of wage and tax laws, not a mere reporting offense. (2) George squarely falls within the class of persons targeted by the statute. (3) While her equity loss ($96,938) exceeded the Guidelines' fine range ($20,000), it was well below the statutory maximum fine of $250,000. (4) The harm caused was significant, affecting the government, the exploited alien, and lawful residents. Considering the totality of these factors, the forfeiture order was not unconstitutionally excessive.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the intent requirement for 'harboring' an illegal alien, emphasizing that the focus is on the defendant's intent to prevent the alien's detection, not necessarily the clandestine nature of the defendant's own actions. It provides crucial guidance for district courts in crafting jury instructions post-Vargas-Cordon, highlighting the importance of conveying both facilitation and concealment aspects. Furthermore, the decision reinforces the multi-factor proportionality analysis for Eighth Amendment excessive fines challenges to criminal forfeitures, particularly for prolonged and exploitative immigration-related offenses, demonstrating that such forfeitures are generally permissible when the crime involves significant and multi-faceted harm beyond simple statutory violations.
