Filed: Jun. 11, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: , Jeremy M. Sternberg, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Michael J., Sullivan, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. Mann agreed to do so.[Karim] in arranging a true marriage to Nicole Mann.United States v. Patrick, 248 F.3d 11, 20 (1st Cir.fraudulent marriage for immigration purposes.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 07-1210
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
MUSA KARIM,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Selya and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judges.
Robert A. O'Meara, by appointment of the Court, on brief for
appellant.
Jeremy M. Sternberg, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Michael J.
Sullivan, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
June 11, 2008
STAHL, Senior Circuit Judge. Appellant Musa Karim, a
Kenyan national, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence upon
which a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to commit marriage
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Following a three-day
trial, Karim was convicted of conspiring to enter a fraudulent
marriage with a United States citizen in order to reap the
immigration benefits he anticipated receiving from such a union.
We review de novo an appeal contesting the sufficiency of
the evidence to sustain a conviction. See United States v. Moran,
312 F.3d 480, 487 (1st Cir. 2002). Such a challenge faces a
significant hurdle in that we ask only whether a reasonable jury
could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and we "resolve
all questions of credibility and reasonable inferences in favor of
the verdict." United States v. Lizardo,
445 F.3d 73, 81 (1st
Cir.), cert. denied,
127 S. Ct. 524 (2006). In this case, Karim's
hurdle on appeal is particularly daunting given the considerable
evidence of his guilt presented at trial. Having concluded that
there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could
have found Karim guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm the
judgment of conviction below.
To support a guilty verdict for conspiracy under 18
U.S.C. § 371, the government must show beyond a reasonable doubt
"the existence of a conspiracy, the defendant's knowledge of it,
and his voluntary participation in it." United States v. Yefsky,
-2-
994 F.2d 885, 890 (1st Cir. 1993). The government alleged that the
object of Karim's conspiracy was violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c),
which imposes criminal sanctions upon "[a]ny individual who
knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any
provision of the immigration laws."
On appeal, Karim puts forth three challenges to the
sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial. He argues that the
government failed to prove (1) the existence of an agreement to
violate the immigration laws; (2) the commission of an overt act in
furtherance of the conspiracy; and (3) that the marriage was not
for a "true purpose." Having reviewed the evidence presented at
trial in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find these
arguments meritless. Indeed, the evidence paints a picture of a
transparent attempt by Karim to conspire to evade the immigration
laws by marriage to a United States citizen.
Karim entered the United States from Kenya in 1999 on a
student visa. When his visa expired, Karim remained in the United
States without authorization. On July 26, 2005, he was arrested
and detained on immigration violations pending a removal hearing
before an immigration judge. In August 2005, Karim's sister, Ann
Karim, with whom he lived, contacted Nicole Mann, a U.S. citizen
with whom Karim had recently ended a brief, eleven-day romantic
relationship. Ann Karim told Mann of Karim's incarceration and
Mann agreed to visit him in jail, though the two were no longer
-3-
dating. After the visit, Ann Karim called Mann and explained that
because Karim was not a U.S. citizen, he faced deportation, and
Mann could help by saying she was his girlfriend or fiancee. Mann
visited Karim again in jail soon thereafter, and Karim asked her
whether she was "going to do that thing" for him. Following that
visit, Ann Karim again called Mann, and explained that Mann would
have to marry Karim in order to help him remain in the United
States. Mann agreed to do so.
Initially, Mann and Ann Karim attempted to arrange a
wedding ceremony at the jail where Karim was detained. After
learning that those ceremonies only took place twice a year, and
the wait for the next opportunity was quite long, Karim suggested
to his sister the possibility of a marriage by proxy, which could
be done more quickly. After a few logistical setbacks, Ann Karim
arranged for Mann to fly to Texas in order to enter a marriage by
proxy under Texas law with Musa Karim. Ann Karim stood in for her
brother at the Texas marriage ceremony, having obtained a written
proxy from him. The day before Mann flew to Texas she visited
Karim in jail. He asked her, "So you're definitely going to go
tomorrow and do that thing for me, right?" Mann replied "yes," and
testified at trial that she interpreted Karim's question to mean
"[t]he fake marriage. I was going to do it." Mann testified that
she never intended for Karim to be her real husband, and she and
Karim did not see each other again until Karim's criminal trial.
-4-
Karim testified that he was aware of the immigration benefits of
marriage to a citizen of the United States, and, before the
District Court, he asserted his eligibility for a waiver of
deportation based on his marriage to Mann.
In his brief to this court, Karim first argues that the
government did not prove that an agreement existed among the co-
conspirators, but only that Ann Karim "somehow assisted Musa
[Karim] in arranging a true marriage to Nicole Mann." However, a
jury could reasonably infer from the evidence that Karim, his
sister, and Mann agreed to undertake a plan to prevent Karim's
deportation by arranging a fraudulent marriage. Contrary to
Karim's assertion, we do not require "evidence of an explicit
agreement to ground a conspiracy conviction," United States v.
Pesaturo, 476 F.3d 60, 72 (1st Cir. 2007), but instead honor the
"well-established legal principle that a conspiracy may be based on
a tacit agreement shown from an implicit working relationship,"
United States v. Patrick,
248 F.3d 11, 20 (1st Cir. 2001). Here,
there was ample testimony pointing to a deliberate, coordinated
effort among the Karim siblings and Nicole Mann to facilitate a
fraudulent marriage for immigration purposes.
Karim also argues on appeal that the government failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of the co-conspirators
committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. This
argument is plainly without merit, given the numerous conversations
-5-
and logistical arrangements that took place among the parties,
which culminated in a trip to Texas to create the marriage by
proxy.
Finally, Karim argues that the government failed to show
that the marriage was not entered into "for a true purpose." He
argues that though Mann testified that she viewed the marriage as
a fraud, that does not mean the government proved that Karim shared
this view. Instead, Karim points to his testimony that "it was
always his intent to make a life with Ms. Mann and her four year
old child." Karim's challenge on this point raises the question of
whether conviction for conspiracy to commit marriage fraud requires
a showing that the couple did not intend to establish a life
together, as was instructed by the District Court in this case, or
simply that the marriage was entered into in order to evade
immigration laws, which tracks the language of the statute. See,
e.g., United States v. Darif, 446 F.3d 701, 710 (7th Cir. 2006)
("[T]he government is not required to show that Defendant lacked
intent to establish a life with Kirklin; it need only show that
Defendant entered into the marriage with Kirklin for the purpose of
evading immigration laws."). We need not address this question
here, because it is clear on this record that a reasonable jury
could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the marriage was
entered into to evade immigration laws and that the parties did not
intend to establish a life together. A reasonable jury could reach
-6-
this conclusion based on the timing of the marriage and the
conversations among the parties, particularly that Karim and Mann
dated for only eleven days; Karim broke off the relationship before
his arrest and only reignited contact with Mann after his arrest;
Ann Karim prodded Mann to help Karim with his immigration problem
by marrying him; Karim repeatedly questioned Mann as to whether she
was going to "do that thing for me"; and Karim and Mann failed to
see each other again until Karim's criminal trial.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of
conviction.
-7-
