United States v. Ali Abdulatif Karaouni, AKA Ali Abdelatif Karaouni

Citations: 379 F.3d 1139; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 17949; 2004 WL 1879239Docket: 03-10327

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 24, 2004; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Ali Abdulatif Karaouni was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 911 for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship on an I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form. The case was appealed on the grounds that the evidence did not support the conviction, as checking the box could be interpreted as a claim to be a U.S. national rather than a citizen, which does not violate the statute. The Ninth Circuit Court reversed the district court's judgment and vacated Karaouni's conviction and sentence.

During the trial, evidence from Karaouni's INS file revealed that he entered the U.S. in January 1992 with a Lebanese passport and had various immigration applications and statuses over the years. He previously acknowledged his Lebanese nationality and was authorized to work as an alien. Despite a deportation order in 1995, he married U.S. citizen Elizabeth Rodriguez in 1997, and they sought legal assistance to adjust his immigration status. Rodriguez testified that they believed Karaouni's status could be resolved positively due to her citizenship. In 1998, he applied to become a permanent resident, identifying himself as "out of status" and Lebanese. His application was later denied for failing to appear at a hearing in December 2001.

In June 1998, after Rodriguez filed an I-130 sponsorship petition but before Karaouni submitted an I-485 application, Karaouni applied for a position at St. Agnes Medical Center, indicating he could provide proof of U.S. citizenship or legal work status. He was hired a month later and completed an I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form, falsely attesting under penalty of perjury that he was a U.S. citizen. On September 4, 2002, he was arrested by INS Agent Hector Bencomo, leading to a two-count indictment based on his I-9 statement. The second count, related to false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), was dismissed, leaving only the charge of falsely claiming U.S. citizenship under § 911. Karaouni was found guilty and sentenced to three months in custody, having already served that time prior to sentencing, and was subsequently deported to Lebanon.

The legal standard for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence following a motion for acquittal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29 requires assessing whether a rational trier of fact could have found all essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The government had the option to prosecute under § 1001(a)(2), which addresses false statements in government proceedings more broadly, but chose to proceed only under § 911. The essential elements of a § 911 violation that the government needed to prove included: 1) Karaouni made a false claim of U.S. citizenship; 2) the misrepresentation was willful; and 3) it was conveyed to someone who had reason to inquire into his citizenship status. The appeal primarily concerns the first element.

Karaouni was not a U.S. citizen in July 1998 when he checked a box on the I-9 Form asserting he was a 'citizen or national of the United States.' He argues that no rational fact-finder could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this verification violated § 911 because the disjunctive phrasing ('or') implies that the terms should not be treated as interchangeable. This distinction is crucial since U.S. nationals and citizens are legally defined differently; while all citizens are nationals, some nationals, like individuals born in American Samoa, are not citizens. The term 'national of the United States' includes those who owe permanent allegiance but are not citizens. The statute specifically addresses false claims of U.S. citizenship, not nationality. Penal statutes require strict construction, meaning individuals should not face penalties unless the law clearly states so. The language of § 911 pertains only to citizenship, unlike other statutes that explicitly apply to both citizens and nationals. The conclusion is that the district court erred by allowing the government to prove an offense by combining different acts. Karaouni’s claim of U.S. nationality, even if false, does not violate § 911, leading to the determination that there is insufficient evidence for his conviction.

The district court's decision to allow the jury to infer that Karaouni was claiming U.S. citizenship by checking the box on the I-9 Form is under scrutiny. The government argued that Karaouni's claim was implausible since he did not meet the legal definition of a U.S. national. However, the core legal question is whether Karaouni's actions constituted a violation of § 911, which requires a direct assertion of U.S. citizenship. The courts have established that mere implications or inferences of citizenship are insufficient for a conviction; only explicit representations count. In prior cases, convictions were overturned due to lack of direct claims of citizenship, as seen in Smiley, where indirect statements did not meet the legal requirement for false representation. 

Karaouni was charged with making a false claim on the I-9 Form, yet the form itself did not directly assert U.S. citizenship. The court holds that the district court erred in allowing a conviction based on inferred claims from other evidence. Additionally, an alleged admission made by Karaouni to INS Agent Bencomo, where he responded "yes, mistake" regarding his intent on the I-9 Form, is considered ambiguous. Even if interpreted as an admission of intent to misrepresent, checking the box did not constitute a legal representation of citizenship, thus failing to fulfill the criteria for a § 911 violation. The principle established is that a belief in wrongdoing does not constitute a crime if the actions do not violate any law. Had he been charged with attempting to make a false claim, the intent might have been relevant, but no such charge was made.

An individual cannot be convicted of a crime if they have not engaged in the prohibited conduct, as demonstrated in the case where stolen property, once recovered by the owner, loses its status as stolen. Delivering such property to an accomplice for entrapment does not constitute a crime, as the accomplice has not actually received stolen property. In the case of Karaouni, he was not convicted for making a false claim of citizenship since he did not actually make such a false claim; thus, his intentions or beliefs regarding citizenship were irrelevant. The court reversed the judgment and vacated the conviction and sentence. Additional notes clarify that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is now the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, that evidence was contested but not challenged on appeal, and that aspects of Karaouni’s asylum application were redacted during the trial. The court referenced statutory provisions regarding false representation of U.S. citizenship and clarified the legal definition of U.S. national. Lastly, the court did not determine whether the evidence was sufficient for a conviction but acknowledged that Karaouni might have mistakenly believed his status changed due to his marriage to a U.S. citizen.

Prior to 2003, the ability of an alien to become a U.S. national by signing a statement of allegiance during naturalization was unclear in various circuits, with conflicting rulings. The jury in a related case expressed confusion about the definition of a U.S. national, indicating a lack of clarity in the legal distinction between U.S. citizenship and nationality. The court informed the jury that no formal definition had been provided by the parties involved. Additionally, the case referenced the relevance of the entire record in establishing whether a misrepresentation of U.S. citizenship was willful, emphasizing that previous cases had not contested the fact of direct misrepresentation. Legal protections exist to prevent convictions based on statements made under police pressure, requiring corroborative evidence for any extrajudicial confessions. The government must not secure convictions based on vague or compound questions, as seen in case law emphasizing the need for precise questioning. This principle was reiterated in a case where an immigration judge was found to have abused discretion by using a compound question without clarity.