## Facts

- Federal investigators uncovered a scheme in which U.S. citizens were recruited to marry Nigerian nationals so the nationals could obtain lawful immigration status.
- CIS officers reviewed immigration files and concluded multiple marriages were fraudulent based on timing, living arrangements, documentation, and related indicators.
- A DHS special agent conducted surveillance, reviewed records, interviewed participants, and also concluded the marriages were fraudulent.
- A cooperating participant testified that Alabi helped run the scheme by locating Nigerian nationals, instructing others on how to answer immigration questions, obtaining logistics for marriage proceedings, and paying for staged wedding photographs for immigration filings.
- At least one U.S. citizen participant corroborated Alabi’s role in arranging sham marriages.
- Charges included: Daniel (marriage fraud under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c)); Alabi (aiding and abetting marriage fraud under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 2); Andrews (aiding and abetting marriage fraud, theft of government money, and false statements), along with conspiracy to commit marriage fraud.
- A jury convicted all defendants; they appealed, and Andrews also challenged a special condition of supervised release restricting psychoactive substances.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Alabi knowingly joined a conspiracy to commit marriage fraud and aided and abetted marriage fraud.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing Alabi’s proposed jury instruction limiting reliance on generalized circumstantial “red flags” and emphasizing intent.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Daniel’s motion to sever his trial from Andrews’s on the ground of prejudicial joinder.
4. Whether, under plain-error review, the district court unlawfully imposed a supervised-release condition restricting Andrews’s use of psychoactive substances.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences of all defendants.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support Alabi’s conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting convictions, relying on testimony describing his coaching, arranging, and logistical support for sham marriages.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Alabi’s requested instruction because the charge given correctly stated the governing law and adequately covered the defense theory.
- The court held denial of severance did not prejudice Daniel, emphasizing the presumption favoring joint trials in conspiracy cases and the jury’s ability to compartmentalize evidence.
- The court held Andrews failed to show plain error in the psychoactive-substances supervised-release condition.

## Legal Principles

- Marriage fraud under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c) requires proof that a defendant knowingly entered into a marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws; financial gain and knowledge of every fraudulent document are not required elements.
- Conspiracy may be proven through circumstantial evidence showing knowledge of the unlawful plan and voluntary agreement to join it.
- Aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 2 requires proof that the defendant associated with the criminal venture, participated to bring it about, and acted to help it succeed.
- Refusal to give a requested jury instruction is reversible only if the instruction was substantially correct, not substantially covered by the charge, and the omission seriously impaired the defense.
- Severance is disfavored for defendants indicted together, especially in conspiracy cases; the defendant must show specific, concrete prejudice.
- Unpreserved challenges to supervised-release conditions are reviewed for plain error; the defendant must show a clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld convictions arising from a sham-marriage immigration scheme, finding the record sufficient to prove conspiratorial and aiding-and-abetting participation, rejecting claimed instructional and severance errors, and declining on plain-error review to disturb a supervised-release condition imposed on a co-defendant.


United States v. Daniel, 933 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2019)