08.07.2015 Views

american immigration lawyers association eb-5 ... - AILA webCLE

american immigration lawyers association eb-5 ... - AILA webCLE

american immigration lawyers association eb-5 ... - AILA webCLE

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

9. In re Singh, 195 A.D.2d 197, 607 N.Y.S.2d 250 (1st Dep’t 1994)(attorney counseled client, a New York resident, to obtain Californiadocuments and file for asylum as a resident of California)C. Immigration Lawyer Indictments1. Kronish v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 126-30 (2d Cir. 1998)(discussing the principle of law that a party’s intentional destructionof evidence can, under certain circumstances, support an inferencethat the evidence would have been unfavorable to the partyresponsible for its destruction)2. United States v. Lundwall, 1 F. Supp. 2d 249 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)(holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1503, the general or “omnibus” obstructionof justice statute, reaches deliberate destruction of documents in civillitigation between private parties)3. United States of America vs. Raghubir Gupta, 07 Crim. 177 –(U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y.) Gupta was charged in March, 2007 with<strong>immigration</strong> fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1546(a) after he“charged clients thousands of dollars to prepare amnestyapplications that contained false information and then submittedthose applications to the United States Citizenship and ImmigrationServices, knowing the applications contained false information.” Inrejecting a motion to dismiss, Court affirmed that a “penal statute isnot void for vagueness if it defines the offense with sufficientdefiniteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct isprohibited.” Simply, “an ordinary person – and certainly an<strong>immigration</strong> attorney – would know that” Gupta’s actions areprohibited by the statute.4. U.S. v. Maqsood Hamid Mir – AW-03-0156 (U.S.D.C., D.Maryland) (September 29, 2005).D. Obstruction of Justice in the Course of Representation1. Obstruction of justice provisions, equally applicable to attorneys, arefound in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512, and 1513. See Mary C.Spearing, Obstruction Of Justice and Attorneys Who Work On CivilFraud Cases, Qui Tam: Beyond Government Contracts, 456PLI/LIT, 521 (1993); see also Kathleen F. Brickey, CorporateCriminal Liability §§ 12:01 - 29 (2d ed. 1992)17us\JUCEARO\7667714.1

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!