United States v. Mauro Cantu, Jr., A/K/A Mario Cantu
557 F.2d 1173, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11896 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The act of "shielding" an undocumented alien from detection under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3) is not limited to physical hiding but includes any conduct that tends to substantially facilitate an alien's illegal presence in the United States. The statutory exemption for "employment" does not protect an employer's affirmative acts designed to help an alien evade immigration authorities.
Facts:
- Mauro Cantu was the proprietor of Mario's Restaurant in San Antonio, Texas, and employed several undocumented aliens, including Lucio Hernandez and Armando Bustamante-Hernandez.
- On June 18, 1976, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) agents arrived at the restaurant based on information that Cantu employed undocumented aliens.
- Cantu refused to admit the agents without a search warrant, causing the agents to wait outside the building.
- While the agents waited, Cantu approached a patron, Billy Morton, and asked him to give Hernandez a ride; Hernandez then left the restaurant with Morton's group.
- Cantu also approached another patron, Ignacio Perez, and asked him to give Bustamante a ride; Bustamante then left with Perez, putting a toothpick in his mouth to appear like a departing customer.
- INS agents intercepted and arrested Hernandez and Bustamante in the restaurant's public parking lot after they exited the building.
Procedural Posture:
- Mauro Cantu was indicted by a federal grand jury for one count of conspiracy and two substantive counts of shielding illegal aliens from detection.
- Cantu filed numerous pretrial motions in the U.S. District Court, including motions to dismiss the indictment, for a bill of particulars, and for discovery, all of which the trial judge denied.
- Following a trial in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a jury returned guilty verdicts on all three counts.
- The district court judge sentenced Cantu to a suspended four-year prison term, five years of probation, and a $3,000 fine.
- Cantu (appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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:
Does an employer's act of arranging for patrons to escort his undocumented alien employees out of a restaurant to evade waiting immigration agents constitute "shielding from detection" under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3), even if the employees are not physically hidden?
Opinions:
Majority - Ainsworth, Circuit Judge
Yes, an employer's act of arranging for patrons to escort his undocumented alien employees out of a restaurant to evade waiting immigration agents constitutes "shielding from detection" under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3). The court reasoned that the term "shield from detection" is not synonymous with "hide," as such a reading would make the word "conceal" in the statute redundant. Adopting the reasoning of the Second Circuit in United States v. Lopez, the court held that the statute proscribes not only smuggling-related activity but also any conduct "tending substantially to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.’" Cantu's actions of orchestrating his employees' departure under the guise of being with patrons was a deliberate attempt to help them evade detection by the waiting INS agents. The court also rejected Cantu's argument that the offense must occur inside a building, stating that the statutory language "in any place" is meant to be broadly inclusive, not restrictive.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and expands the scope of what constitutes "shielding" under 8 U.S.C. § 1324, establishing that the offense is not limited to surreptitious acts of physical concealment. By focusing on the defendant's intent and the act's effect—facilitating an alien's continued illegal presence by evading detection—the ruling makes it easier to prosecute individuals who use clever or indirect methods to obstruct immigration enforcement. The case also significantly limits the "employment exemption," showing that it does not protect employers who go beyond the normal incidents of employment to actively help their undocumented employees evade authorities. This precedent puts employers on notice that any affirmative step to interfere with an INS investigation can lead to felony charges.
