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

attorneystatutevisadeportationjury instructions
attorneystatutevisadeportationjury instructions

Related Cases

Kiareldeen v. Reno
View Case »
Ri Kai Lin v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
View Case »
Morales-Alvarado v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Roman v. Mukasey
View Case »
Phong Thanh Nguyen v. Chertoff
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Trevino-Martinez; U.S. v.

Facts

In 1988, Trevino, a Mexican citizen, was arrested in the United States and convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. After serving six months in jail, he was deported and required to obtain the express consent of the Attorney General before reentering the U.S. Undeterred, Trevino illegally returned in January 1991, was arrested, and deported again. In 1992, he applied for a non-immigrant visa, which was granted without the consulate knowing of his prior deportations. He later confessed to being in the U.S. illegally and was indicted for illegal reentry.

In 1988, Trevino, a Mexican citizen, was arrested in the United States and convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. After serving six months in jail, he was deported and required to obtain the express consent of the Attorney General before reentering the U.S. Undeterred, Trevino illegally returned in January 1991, was arrested, and deported again. In 1992, he applied for a non-immigrant visa, which was granted without the consulate knowing of his prior deportations. He later confessed to being in the U.S. illegally and was indicted for illegal reentry.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in rejecting Trevino's proposed jury instructions regarding the necessity of specific intent and the validity of his non-immigrant visa as consent for reentry.

Whether the district court erred in rejecting Trevino's proposed jury instructions regarding the necessity of specific intent and the validity of his non-immigrant visa as consent for reentry.

Rule

The court held that under 8 U.S.C. 1326, an alien who has been previously arrested and deported must obtain express consent from the Attorney General to reenter the U.S., and that the statute does not require proof of specific intent for a conviction.

The court held that under 8 U.S.C. 1326, an alien who has been previously arrested and deported must obtain express consent from the Attorney General to reenter the U.S., and that the statute does not require proof of specific intent for a conviction.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that Trevino's proposed jury instructions were incorrect because the statute does not impose a requirement of specific intent. The court noted that Trevino could not demonstrate that the American consulate had the authority to grant him reentry or that he had received any misleading information from the consulate that would justify his belief that he was legally entitled to reenter the U.S.

The court applied the rule by determining that Trevino's proposed jury instructions were incorrect because the statute does not impose a requirement of specific intent. The court noted that Trevino could not demonstrate that the American consulate had the authority to grant him reentry or that he had received any misleading information from the consulate that would justify his belief that he was legally entitled to reenter the U.S.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the conviction for illegally reentering the United States, holding that the district court did not err in rejecting Trevino's proposed jury instructions.

The court affirmed the conviction for illegally reentering the United States, holding that the district court did not err in rejecting Trevino's proposed jury instructions.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that Trevino's arguments regarding specific intent and the validity of his visa were without merit.

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that Trevino's arguments regarding specific intent and the validity of his visa were without merit.

You must be