## Facts

- ICE investigated a migrant-smuggling organization operating near Nogales, Arizona, from 2007 to 2010.
- The organization met migrants in Mexico, guided them across terrain near Nogales, transported them by vehicle to a Tucson shuttle company (“GS”), and then moved them to safe houses until payment.
- Agents observed Miguel Torralba-Mendia at GS roughly twenty to twenty-five times.
- Intercepted calls captured Torralba-Mendia coordinating migrant pickups and arranging transportation north; in one call he was told to charge $2,100 to drive two people to Tucson.
- Agents observed him transporting suspected undocumented migrants to locations in Phoenix.
- Agents described counter-surveillance driving, including a “heat run” after picking up multiple people and reporting a suspicious parked vehicle near GS.
- At trial, the government introduced redacted DHS Form I-213s for detained passengers, removing narrative statements and using the remaining entries to show deportation status.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court plainly erred by not giving a specific limiting instruction explaining how jurors should evaluate a case agent’s dual-role lay and expert testimony.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403 by admitting expert testimony describing common practices of alien-smuggling organizations.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Torralba-Mendia knowingly joined and intended to further the smuggling conspiracy.
4. Whether admitting redacted I-213 forms was improper hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8) or violated the Confrontation Clause.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction for conspiracy to smuggle undocumented immigrants under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I).
- The absence of a dual-role instruction for the case agent was plain error, but not prejudicial on this record and therefore not reversible.
- Admission of the government’s expert testimony on smuggling-organization practices was within the district court’s discretion and was not unfairly prejudicial.
- The evidence (surveillance, intercepted calls, and conduct consistent with knowing participation) was sufficient for a rational juror to find intent to further the conspiracy.
- The redacted I-213 forms were admissible as public records under Rule 803(8) and, as admitted, did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

## Legal Principles

- When a case agent provides both lay and expert testimony, a jury instruction distinguishing the roles may be required; failure to give it is reviewed for plain error if not requested, and reversal requires prejudice affecting substantial rights.
- Expert testimony about typical operations of criminal smuggling organizations may be admitted under Rule 702 when it helps the jury understand the defendant’s alleged role and may be excluded only if unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value under Rule 403.
- A conspiracy conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence showing knowing participation and intent to further the unlawful objective, including coordination communications and behavior consistent with counter-surveillance.
- Redacted immigration I-213 forms documenting routine administrative information may qualify as admissible public records under Rule 803(8) when treated as ministerial, regularly kept records and when testimonial narrative statements are excluded, avoiding Confrontation Clause concerns.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld Torralba-Mendia’s smuggling-conspiracy conviction, concluding that any instructional error concerning a dual-role agent did not affect the verdict, the expert context testimony was properly admitted, the evidence supported a finding of knowing participation, and the redacted I-213 public records were admissible without violating hearsay rules or the Confrontation Clause.


United States v. Torralba-Mendia, 784 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 2015)