19-158 (L) United States v. Lita, et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27th day of January, two thousand twenty. Present: REENA RAGGI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. 19-158 (L) 19-213 (Con) 19-252 (Con) DALIA LITA, ELINA RAHMAN, and LUBNA RAHMAN, Defendants-Appellants. _____________________________________ For Appellee: CARINA H. SCHOENBERGER, Assistant United States Attorney, for Grant C. Jaquith, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, NY For Defendant-Appellant Dalia Lita: JAMES P. EGAN, Assistant Federal Public Defender, for Lisa A. Peebles, Federal Public Defender, Syracuse, NY 1 For Defendant-Appellant Elina Rahman: BENJAMIN GRUENSTEIN, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, New York, NY For Defendant-Appellant Lubna Rahman: PETER J. TOMAO, Garden City, NY Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Thomas J. McAvoy, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Dalia Lita, Elina Rahman, and Lubna Rahman (collectively, “Defendants”) appeal from their respective convictions, entered on January 14, 2019, following trial for conspiracy to commit visa fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1546(a). The government introduced evidence at trial that, in order to obtain visas, Defendants concealed, among other things, that Elina and Lubna had previously resided in the United States. On appeal, Defendants primarily challenge the admission of Elina and Lubna’s visa applications, the sufficiency of the evidence, and a jury instruction regarding an uncalled consular officer. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. I. Admissibility of Visa Applications We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Williams, 930 F.3d 44, 58 (2d Cir. 2019). The government contends that Defendants objected only on grounds of authenticity in the district court, and that their hearsay claims must therefore also satisfy the plain-error standard of review. We need not resolve whether plain-error review applies because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the visa applications and, even if it had, any error would have been harmless. Turning first to authenticity, Federal Rule of Evidence ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals