NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 8 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10454 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cr-00368-CRB-1 v. ABHIJIT PRASAD, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 9, 2021 San Francisco, California Before: BERZON, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant Abhijit Prasad appeals his convictions on twenty-one counts of visa fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), and two counts of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). Prasad asserts evidentiary errors and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Prasad operated Maremarks, a company through which he filed petitions with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to obtain H-1B nonimmigrant status for foreign workers, known as H-1B beneficiaries, to supply these beneficiaries as workers for his end-clients. The government alleged that Prasad falsely represented in the H-1B petitions that there were specific work positions for the prospective H-1B beneficiaries at Maremarks’ end-clients, including Cisco Systems, when those work positions did not exist. The government asserted that Prasad’s commission of some counts of visa fraud included fabricating a work position at Cisco and then forging a Cisco employee’s signature on a statement of work, which purportedly evinced that there was a bona fide position at Cisco for the H-1B beneficiary even though no position existed. See Donald Neufeld, U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., HQ 70/6.2.8 (AD 10-24), Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements (2010).1 1. Prasad argues that the district court violated Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) by admitting evidence of two statements of work, Exhibits 20 and 919, that were related to dismissed visa fraud charges. “Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that 1 This guidance was effective during the period that Prasad filed the petitions at issue in this case. See U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., PM-602-0114, Rescission of Policy Memoranda 1 (2020). 2 on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). “‘Other act’ evidence that is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with a charged offense is independently admissible and is exempt from the requirements of Rule 404(b).” United States v. Anderson, 741 F.3d 938, 949 (9th Cir. 2013). This court reviews de novo whether evidence falls under Rule 404(b)’s prohibition. See United States v. Dorsey, 677 F.3d 944, 951 (9th Cir. 2012). The district court did not err in admitting Exhibits 20 and 919 because they were relevant to the charges presented at trial. The government offered Exhibits 20 and 919 to prove that there was a …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals