Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatutetrialvisa
defendantstatutetrialvisa

Related Cases

Zixiang Li v. Kerry
View Case »
Kannika v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs
View Case »
Linnas v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Spacek v. Holder
View Case »
Ruiz- Lopez v. Holder
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Prasad; U.S. v.

Facts

At trial, the Government contended that Abhijit Prasad, then the president and CEO of a visa services company, committed visa fraud by including false information on H-1B visa applications. The Government alleged that Prasad forged the digital signatures of a real Cisco employee on false documents submitted in support of the visa petitions. After a six-day trial, the jury convicted Prasad on twenty-one counts of visa fraud and two counts of aggravated identity theft.

At trial, the Government contended that Abhijit Prasad, then the president and CEO of a visa services company that filed H-1B visa applications on behalf of nonimmigrant workers, committed visa fraud by including false information on those applications. The Government also alleged that Prasad committed aggravated identity theft by forging the digital signatures of a real Cisco employee, Naveen Gattu, on false documents (called Statements of Work) that he submitted in support of the visa petitions.

Issue

Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Dubin v. United States requires that Prasad's convictions for aggravated identity theft be vacated.

Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Dubin v. United States requires that Prasad's convictions for aggravated identity theft be vacated.

Rule

The aggravated identity theft statute, 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1), applies when a defendant, during and in relation to any predicate offense, knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.

The aggravated identity theft statute, 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1), applies when a defendant, 'during and in relation to any [predicate offense], knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.'

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that Prasad's conduct fell within the statutory text of aggravated identity theft. It noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Dubin did not change the law in a way that would affect Prasad's case, as his actions were directly related to the predicate offense of visa fraud.

The court applied the rule by determining that Prasad's conduct fell within the statutory text of aggravated identity theft. It noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Dubin did not change the law in a way that would affect Prasad's case, as his actions were directly related to the predicate offense of visa fraud.

Conclusion

The court denied Prasad's petition for a writ of error coram nobis, affirming that his conduct constituted aggravated identity theft under the law.

The court denied Prasad's petition for a writ of error coram nobis, affirming that his conduct constituted aggravated identity theft under the law.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that Prasad's actions met the criteria for aggravated identity theft as defined by the statute.

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that Prasad's actions met the criteria for aggravated identity theft as defined by the statute.

You must be