United States v. Yun Zheng
23a0257p.06 (6th Cir. 2023) (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The offense of harboring illegal noncitizens for commercial gain under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires the government to prove that the defendant, with knowing or reckless disregard of the noncitizen's unlawful status, engaged in conduct that tended to substantially facilitate the noncitizen remaining illegally in the U.S. and tended to prevent government authorities from detecting their unlawful presence, without requiring proof of specific intent to shield from detection.
Facts:
- Yun Zheng and Yan Qiu Wu owned and operated Tokyo Dragon Buffet, Inc., a Chinese restaurant in Alexandria, Kentucky.
- Zheng and Wu employed four Hispanic men who were noncitizens living and working in the United States illegally, in addition to employees of Chinese descent.
- The illegal noncitizen employees lived in the basement of Zheng and Wu’s home.
- Zheng and Wu transported these men to and from work every day and to the grocery store once a week.
- Zheng and Wu paid the noncitizen employees in cash and did not file any employment paperwork with state or federal governments, nor did they report their wages to the Kentucky Office of Unemployment Insurance, despite doing so for other employees.
- One noncitizen employee, Fidelino Francisco-Pedro, was instructed by Zheng not to go outside or make noise to avoid deportation.
- The noncitizen employees were generally confined to the kitchen, which was not visible from the dining room, and were not allowed to interact with customers.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Yun Zheng and Yan Qiu Wu on four counts of harboring illegal noncitizens for commercial gain and one count of conspiracy for the same.
- A four-day trial was held in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, where the jury returned guilty verdicts against Zheng and Wu on the four harboring counts and not guilty verdicts on the conspiracy count.
- The district court sentenced Zheng and Wu.
- Zheng and Wu, as appellants, timely appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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 the offense of harboring illegal noncitizens for commercial gain under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) require the government to prove that the defendant acted intentionally in shielding the illegal noncitizens from law enforcement, or is it sufficient to prove conduct that tended to substantially facilitate their illegal presence and prevent detection?
Opinions:
Majority - Mathis, J.
No, the offense of harboring illegal noncitizens for commercial gain under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) does not require the government to prove that the defendant acted intentionally in shielding the illegal noncitizens from law enforcement; it is sufficient to prove conduct that tended to substantially facilitate their illegal presence and prevent detection. The court affirmed the district court's jury instruction, holding that Zheng and Wu failed to show the instruction was incorrect. The prior version of the statute (1952) explicitly required 'willfully or knowingly' harboring, but the 1986 amendment (Immigration Reform and Control Act) removed this specific intent requirement for the 'harboring' action itself, attaching 'knowing or in reckless disregard' only to the fact of the alien's unlawful status. This significant statutory change, interpreted using the reenactment canon, presumes a change in meaning. The court aligned with the Third, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, which interpret 'harboring' as conduct tending to substantially facilitate illegal presence and prevent detection, rejecting approaches from other circuits requiring intentional or knowing mens rea for the act of harboring. The court found Zheng and Wu's reliance on a 1928 precedent, Susnjar, misplaced due to subsequent statutory changes and dismissed their 'presumption in favor of scienter' argument as they sought a heightened 'specific intent' mens rea beyond what the statute implies, and the statutory history rebuts it. Furthermore, any potential instructional error was deemed harmless given the overwhelming evidence that Zheng and Wu's actions, such as providing secluded housing and transportation, restricting customer interaction, cash payments, and lack of official employment records, intended to assist in avoiding detection. The court also found the district court's examples of 'housing and employment' in the instruction did not invade the province of the jury, as it did not unequivocally state Zheng and Wu had done so, but rather listed ways such facilitation 'may' occur, leaving the ultimate factual determination to the jury, reinforced by a general instruction on the jury's role as factfinder.
Concurring - Kethledge, J.
I agree with the majority's decision to affirm the conviction, but do not join the majority's conclusion that the government need not prove that a defendant knowingly harbored illegal noncitizens. Justice Kethledge stated that the majority's conclusion regarding the lack of a 'knowing' mens rea requirement for harboring was likely dictum because the defendants (Zheng and Wu) only argued for an intentional mens rea, not a knowing one. He further suggested that, even if not dictum, this particular conclusion by the majority was 'likely mistaken,' referencing general principles requiring a culpable mental state for criminal offenses as discussed in Elonis v. United States.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the mens rea required for the 'harboring' element under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) in the Sixth Circuit, aligning it with circuits that do not require specific intent to shield from detection. By rejecting the need for intentional shielding, the court broadens the scope of what constitutes criminal harboring, potentially making it easier for prosecutors to secure convictions in cases where defendants provide extensive support to undocumented individuals without explicit acts of concealment. The decision reinforces the importance of statutory language and legislative history in interpreting criminal statutes, particularly when Congress has explicitly removed or altered mens rea requirements, differentiating 'knowing or reckless disregard' of status from a specific intent for the harboring act itself. It also confirms that providing basic necessities like housing and employment, if done to facilitate illegal presence and evade detection, can constitute harboring.
