holding that the crime of “bring[ing]” unauthorized alien “to” United States is continuing offense that terminates, thereby foreclosing aiding and abetting liability based solely on subsequent acts, when initial transporter drops off alien at location inside United States, not earlier at moment border is crossed, nor later when intended or ultimate destination is reached
How later courts described this case
- holding that the crime of “bring[ing]” unauthorized alien “to” United States is continuing offense that terminates, thereby foreclosing aiding and abetting liability based solely on subsequent acts, when initial transporter drops off alien at location inside United States, not earlier at moment border is crossed, nor later when intended or ultimate destination is reached
- concluding that “[a] financier who organizes and funds a smuggling operation, . . . whether located in or outside of the United States, may be said to have associated himself with the venture, participated in it as in something he wished to bring about, and sought by his action to make it succeed” (alterations adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
- finding that replacement strikes were properly granted when the lower court held that the Batson decision was very close and carefully monitored the government’s use of the new strikes
- holding that the “brings to” offense “ends when the person who transports the aliens to the country terminates his act of transportation and drops off the aliens in the United States”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BEA, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring.
I agree with the majority that Lopez transported illegal aliens only within the United States and that there is insufficient evidence that Lopez otherwise aided and abetted the “brings to” offense. I do not agree that the “brings to” offense continues until the initial transporter drops off the aliens. By the plain text of the statute, the offense is completed at the border. Any further transportation may constitute transporting an illegal alien within the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(1)(A)(ii), but does not constitute “bringing to” the United States such alien.
The majority opinion is an extended exercise in statutory interpretation, on grounds and using methods which I do not endorse. But there is no point in commenting further because it is also an exercise unnecessary to decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(2)(B)(ii) makes it illegal to “bring[ ] to ... the United States” an illegal alien. A person “brings to” the United States an illegal alien when he transports the alien across any border. That is the plain meaning of the statute, and I can see no reason to depart from it.