Oral argument — United States v. Evelyn Sineneng-Smith

Van, please report. My name is Daniel Cook. I'm representing the appellant, Evelyn Sineneng-Smith. I'd like to take ten minutes at the front end and reserve five minutes at the end if I may, Your Honor. I thirdly concur, Your Honor. The first thing I'd like to bring up is the Madison 48 issue, which was put to the notice about last Thursday. About whether there was a plain error from the trial court on starting on the men's writing intent element in the immigration claims. Then after I filed a letter, two letters with this court, asserting there was objection in the trial court in the proposed offense instruction on requiring an element of intent to violate the immigration laws, I recently answered a case file. And as the second letter, the court's office said I should make an exemption, and I filed that yesterday. So I'm asking this court to allow supplemental brief or conclude that this argument on the intent of the issue, consider my letters and my motion as briefing, and consider the eight exhibits that were attached, showing the jury instructions and the defense objections and the defense proposed instruction and the objection altogether. Actually, the crime here is encouraging or inducing someone to do something, right? Yes. How do you encourage or induce somebody to do something without the purpose of the injury? I don't know. I mean, it seems to me to be implicit, encouraging and inducing that you have the purpose of doing it. Normally, that might be the case, and I can see that argument. But what you have to do is you have to be in acquaintance with the criminal intent. What do you mean if they do something criminal? That it has to act with knowledge of the criminal intent. You have to know what you're doing is criminal or that the intent of what they do is criminal? What they're doing is criminal. Correct. Okay, so. And what does the statute say? The statute simply on its face has a knowledge requirement. You have to know the, you know, there's a lawfully here and. . . You have to answer the case law other than on this subpart of the statute. That's the U case and the N case, the Barajas-Monteo case, the Montas-Leyva case. All talk about different subsections of Part A required intent. You have a purpose violating the. . . The instruction was that the defendant, it had been found that the defendant encouraged or induced the alien to reside in the United States in violation of the law. So how can it be that you encourage somebody to do something in violation of the law and not have the purpose and be here in violation of the law? It says you did that for the aliens violating the law, but you have to understand. . . An alien simply being in the country in a lawful is not a crime. If you've been deported and you re-enter, it is. The mere fact that you're an alien doesn't make it a crime. So the crime here has to be her intent that she would be encouraging and inducing them to remain here. And what's important about that is the really critical points to this case. I mean, you're right about that. Actually, you probably are. I mean, that section where she says, I didn't know that the alien's residence in the United States would be in violation of the law is an erroneous statement. But the whole premise here is that the alien's residence was or would be in violation of the law. I mean, it might be an interesting argument that that's all non sequitur because you can't have residence in violation of the law if you didn't make that argument. Well, because they didn't raise the intent instruction issued directly on the appeal. The intent instruction wasn't the actual instruction. It was defended this late afternoon that the alien's residence in the United States was or would be in violation of the law. You're saying, well, residence isn't in violation of the law. What I'm saying is that that simply says the defendant must know that the alien is here unlawfully. Okay. That's the annoying part. The non-sergic case law has said it's just not allowed. And here we go. I'd like to point out the judge gave the pattern instruction nine points. Which does not include the intent element. However, the pattern instructions 9.1, .2, .3, and .5 dealing with the other subparts of A, of section 1324, and of B all have an intent element as an additional element in the pattern instruction. The critical difference here is this. And I think this goes to your point, Your Honor. Ellen Sanding Smith had a right to file the I-140 petitions. Because as Mr. Kuzma, the government's expert on immigration law, stated quite unpleasantly in the trial, the Department of Labor on the Labor Certification, the INS, on the I-140 doesn't care whether you are here unlawfully or working unlawfully. In fact, in this case, both of the aliens were granted labor certifications where Ms. Sanding Smith submitted completely appropriate forms. Nothing false. Saying, I'm here. I'm working. I'm asking to work in a job that nobody else wants. With a labor certification, you have to show no one else wants this job. The employer is willing to pay a prevailing rate. And you advertise that to see if you can get people. You have to submit all that to the Department of Labor. The government submitted these sorts of explanations. That's trial and error. Ms. Sanding Smith was surfacing these aliens to the government Mr. Islaw also testified that there's a legitimate purpose to file these petitions, even if they're here unlawfully and working unlawfully. What you want as an alien in that situation is labor certification approval, step one. I-140 petition approval, step two. You can't go any farther unless and until Congress changes the law to reenact I-245 alien drilling. During the relevant time for these meetings. The government's theory was that she represented these people that they couldn't get paid cards and that they were working or other people represented that they were working illegally while they were working when that isn't true. And those representations induced them to stay where they would otherwise have left. Those representations remained in 2002. Here's a growth plan. The second one I was going to make. Ms. Sanding Smith represented the aliens on labor certifications. Those got approved. All types of applications are employer applications. They're not submitted by me. If an employer doesn't want to do it, it doesn't happen. Ms. Sanding Smith, for both of these aliens, the offense was a single day of violation. The only thing that happened on that day was the aliens signed the retainer agreement and some other paperwork, which didn't actually go 45 miles. The question is whether everything that happened previously of which what happened that day was part of a larger plan that she had worked out with these individuals essentially so that had she not done that step, then they would no longer have had the incentives to stay at that point. The representation she gave for the charged immigration penalty on the I-140s, it's different. The employers were representing themselves on the petitions. She was hired only to file the petitions and in regard to the air motion and also handle the correspondence back and forth. She was not doing anything other than that. The record shows that's something I agree with. The original plan was we're going to do this and then we're going to do that and you're going to get to stay, so this is part of that. It's not because in this instance, Ms. Savanig-Smith is not doing the entire petition. The evidence that both witnesses, both the aliens admitted, they knew she was not giving them any advice on the I-140s. They didn't talk to her about the 245I eligibility or anything else. They didn't talk to her at all. If they had any questions or other advice, they would go to their employer or they would go to some other, some lawyer. So it's different in. . . It says nothing about the I-140 process. There's two steps to the process and they're legitimate steps to take because at the end, if you get approvals, you stand there with your ticket punched waiting for the law to change, waiting for your priority date for your country to come. So it's materially different because she wasn't giving advice at all on the I-140 petition, period. Who knows how the law had changed or not. She had no responsibility for explaining any of that to the hearing. But is there evidence that she told the meeting in Congress that they could go to work immediately? Unjustified to that, yes. But that doesn't speak to the situation five years later when you have labor certification approval and you're now submitting a new petition. And Ms. Hennig-Smith called the forms easily and signed. The chart of the government reference shows there's a 245I block and if Congress doesn't pass a law, you don't get to go petition for a green card or citizenship. So in that sense, she made a general disclosure that, hey, there's this impediment here. And both of these aliens on the D-chart signed that chart. So she told them there was an impediment. She didn't have an obligation to do so, but she told them. The... It's important to note that it's a limited representation. And it's a one-page chart. She had to have the courage to do the aliens. On the one-page chart, you can't have them detect. I don't want to speculate. I don't want to speculate. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Williams. The fact is, does that have to do with these reputations that the council has told us to do? Is that correct? Is there a difference between you? Yes, Your Honor. I think the court summed it up. The issue is whether or not they knew what they were paying her for what they were buying. And our contention is, and the district court found, that as to both the schemes of fraud and the encouragement and inducement, they were all deceptive. And the entire course of conduct with these victim aliens was predatory and, in fact, designed to mislead them. Your Honor, I think we can look. I think she represented that through her services, she targeted them, she lulled them into her office, and said, through my services, you're going to get a great deal. That was earlier, right? The question is, is there anything that ties this one to 2007? When was the second stage, the application? Yes, Your Honor. First was the labor certification. Okay. Surrounding the visa application, the position for alien workers, the second step, as Your Honor noted, it's really a three-step process. That's what she's marking. All right. Second one. So, as to the second one, I think it's very instructive, Your Honor. First of all, as I mentioned, it's the entire course of conduct. By the time the second step happens, they've already been induced to remain here. They've been encouraged to remain here by the first step, which is, I'm going to get you a permanent residency through the labor certification, and then all of the law-enforcing letters, you're complying, you're protected, you can stay here, in addition to what she told them. But then the second step is the second part of the inducement. And, yes, we had proven on that day, but every single day they remained, they were induced to remain here by her actions. And looking at the I-140, she's not being charged with filing petitions. She's charged with using these retainer agreements as part of the inducement. And I think having went with the I-40 retainer agreement to her minister, Esteban, is very instructive, because it illustrates that she's using each of these to encourage them to induce them to remain. Because look at the S.E.R. 577. There's the letter that goes to paying it. Congratulations, your patient has just been rewarded. The next step is for you to file a second petition. And what's very instructive, and she's continuing in those documents surrounding the second retainer, we're using our best efforts to make you happy during this difficult and complicated process to legalize your immigration status. Well, at that point, she knew this was not, this was not passed immigration status, but there are other deceptive documents in that package that have said that. Yes, about the statute. Yes. And what your interpretation of the statute is. You have here the representation of fraud or exploitation element, but is the statute, is that in the statute? So what is the limit of the statute? What is the limit of the statute? If I have a neighbor and he's illegal and he comes to me and he says, what should I do, should I stay or should I leave? Should I leave? And his only definition of status is probably not going to apply to him. Should I fire him? Well, I think the distinction here is that this requires a knowing inducement or encouragement to violate the law. And to support his belief that it encompassed a knowing that the criminal did, because he was confronted with the argument that he should have given the instruction, and he said, no, I think that that is encompassed within this. My understanding is that, I don't know if all, but most of the cases having to do with this statute have involved some fraud on the United States government, i.e., fraudulent documents and so on. Right? I understand your theory of this case is coming from the statute, but I'm wondering where it stops at that point, because there is no fraud element of anybody in the statute as such. I think the statute requires, and the jury was instructed, that she had to know that they were in violation of the law and that she had to encourage them to remain here in violation of the law. I'm sorry, I'm just getting so squirreled. What does that mean? I'm sorry, Your Honor, I have a little bit of a hearing loss. If you could speak directly into the mic, and I apologize. Well, I just moved, you know, the lawyer said to a client, it's before the era of trial by the courts, as Eric Kennedy, General, puts it. You know, before that era, a client goes to a lawyer and says, you know, I've overstayed, I've been here 20 years. What should I do? And the lawyer says, well, no, the same country is going to charge you $2.11 million. So you are one of those people who never committed a crime, who's paid taxes, who's had a family. If I were you, I would do nothing. I'd go back and continue to live my life. Is that more than guilty of a crime? Well, Your Honor, I think the Oye Oye De case, which dealt with the crime version of the statute, sort of deals with this kind of situation. What's the answer? Guilty of a crime, yes or no? Your Honor, I'm not sure I heard your example completely, but I think it is. Well, the distinction, Your Honor, is that in your example, the lawyer is not inducing the alien to remain here illegally. He's already here. He's not inducing, he's not the catalyst. And I think that's the distinction. The only distinction is you're not a lawyer. Well, that's all I was going to say, is he's a lawyer. So I don't understand. I mean, to understand the concern, the concern is that there is no, there is nothing in the statute that suggests fraud. Oye Oye, Oye Annie, or however one says it, did involve fraud against the government, right? I understand, Your Honor, yes. So where, it's kind of like the under-services cases, which led the Supreme Court to take a very narrow view of what under-services was because of what happens if you don't. And what I'm trying to figure out is where's the limit that, well, is the government's ultimate position that in fact these other hypotheticals we're giving you are violations of the statute, or if they're not, why not? And why is this case on the other side of whatever line there is? Your Honor, I can't, you know, I think that'd have to be determined on a case-by-case-by-case basis. So once we are moving away from the government, from the government cases, we are over a line, and the question is what's the next line? How do we stop at the next line? It sounds like what this person did was exploitative and so on. There are crimes, there are statutes to deal with it, the bail fraud statutes, and you did. The question is why should this statute apply to it, or does it apply to it? And if it does, what's the stopping point? Your Honor, I think the key distinction in this case is that there was a false promise, there was fraud. And the fraud's not in the statute. So in other words, what is to interpret the statute is that if you say there has to be some kind of fraud or deception, is that your suggestion? No, Your Honor, I don't think there has to be fraud, and that was our position below. But I do believe in this case, this fits clearly within the line of cases that we cited in our brief, which is that there was an element of fraud, and that is that's why it shouldn't be reversed. It's why the court found that, instructed us, that the fraud here wasn't a fraud on the government. It was fraud on the aliens. This woman targeted all the men in her office and gave us this. It's not in the statute that she has to have committed a fraud. So put it in the statute. Well, certainly the U cases indicate that there needs to be a criminal intent, but we don't believe there was plain error here in not giving that instruction because it's not in the statute, the plain language of the statute. Criminal intent means fraud. Our question is, criminal intent mean? Criminal intent means knowing violation of the law, as the court answered. That's at least the question upon the statute means. It would be, does that fraud element, that she doesn't have to have committed fraud? Well, the court did seem to agree that there's some sort of criminal intent into it, but we don't think the statute itself says that. I don't think the court itself. Well, the statute doesn't say what our case law clause says. Right? Correct, Your Honor, but not as to this particular. So you look at U.S. Units, and it addresses Civil Division 4, right? It says U.S. Units says fraud. Something like this. It says, the government must show that the defendant acted with criminal intent, i.e., that's a violation of the statute. That's a mandatory requirement. Your Honor, if I may, to go back to the court's initial questions, we proved that here. What's the proof? What's the jury's opinion on this? Well, the evidence in this case, even if the court, so we spontaneously decided to decide this issue, the plaintiff hasn't been demonstrated because, number one, the court followed the model instructions, which were the 20 to 10 instructions. The court was able to rely on those. This court in U. basically said, well, the district court relies on the model instructions. And as in this case, the evidence is overwhelming. There is not plain air. The defendant waived this issue. He candidly admitted last Friday, I didn't raise this issue because I didn't want this reverse remand. Your Honor, I didn't raise this issue because I didn't want this reverse remand. It's an interesting question, but at the same time a legitimate question. I don't want anybody to have to face questions about this. What we're really properly looking for is this. If there were such a requirement, I mean, an exam requirement, and I think there is, it would go a long way to resolving Judge Reinhardt's example, who was a lawyer who would tell us that, well, to do anything, because Jim, you would have to do this, because in that situation, we're trying to do equivalent sentences. It would address, certainly, Judge Reinhardt's concern, but, Your Honor, I see only have two minutes, and I understand this is a concern for the Court. This case was indicted in 2010. And the government charged this case because the defendant targeted, as well, and exploited some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and she did it for one reason only. She did it for greed. There was no benefit to these petitions she was filing for them. And those representations are false. MS. MCDOWELL. Yes, it is a harmless error argument, which it might be. It's a harmless error argument with regard to the intent, but the benchmark question, that is, that it doesn't matter whether there was an instruction, because the evidence is such that she would have been found to have had the intent, and so is her argument. MRS. MCDOWELL. That is her argument, Your Honor. And if I may, I want to just address that. The evidence of her criminal intent, that she intended to violate the immigration statutes, is from her systemic requirement that she intended to violate it, or that she knew that the people she was dealing with were illegal, or that she had the purpose of having the people that she was dealing with stay here in violation of the law. And that includes in violation of the law, her in violation of the law or them in violation of the law, to encourage them to remain in violation of the law. MRS. MCDOWELL. Right. So it's not really a criminal intent, in the sense that she knew that what she was doing was criminal. MRS. MCDOWELL. Well, I would suggest the evidence in this case proves both. You know, her admissions are, I knew that this entire process. MRS. MCDOWELL. She doesn't know what she was doing was criminal. MRS. MCDOWELL. No, no. MRS. MCDOWELL. She knew about the statute, and I think, Your Honor, the statute about which she was convicted. MRS. MCDOWELL. No, no. MRS. MCDOWELL. In order to prove that she knew what she was doing was criminal, she would have to know about this statute. MRS. MCDOWELL. No, Your Honor. She had to know it was a violation of the law. MRS. MCDOWELL. Right. MRS. MCDOWELL. And in this case, the evidence is that she knew. MRS. MCDOWELL. No, because what else was it a violation of? You mean because it was a violation of the bail fund? MRS. MCDOWELL. Well, yes. You're right. That she was encouraging them to remain. She said, and in this point, in this case, it's inducing them to remain in violation of the law. MRS. MCDOWELL. Okay. MR. MCDOWELL. Can I ask a question? Go ahead. MR. MCDOWELL. The government agency is not interested in offering a legal legacy certification, right? MRS. MCDOWELL. Yes. MR. MCDOWELL. The legacy certification must have a claim to that in order to remain in the country. MRS. MCDOWELL. No, Your Honor. The labor certification, as Agent Gutz's law explained, the labor certification is really the government checking is to protect American workers. Are you importing someone in here to take an American's job? The second step later on, the I-40 petition is basically, is everything you told me before true? But what happened here is she marketed these particular retainers, these particular processes, as a means to a green card when she knew they weren't. MR. MCDOWELL. I'm sorry. Are you encouraging people to stay in the country if you give them a legacy certification? MRS. MCDOWELL. No, Your Honor. You are not, because that doesn't impact. And, in fact, the defendant knew that. She said it doesn't allow you to remain here. It doesn't allow you to work. All the, in fact, and in my problem statement. MR. MCDOWELL. Wait, I'm sorry. When you give these people a piece of paper, what do you do? You can't work? MRS. MCDOWELL. The labor certification goes to the employer, but this brings me back to the specific retainer agreements. And as the inducement, it's not the labor certification itself or the I-40 position that induces it. MR. MCDOWELL. I'm going to ask you a different question, which is there's something about the scheme as a whole, which is at least anomalous in the sense that it does appear to at least infuse people, because why would you be giving them a piece of paper regarding whether they can work when they can't work? MR. MCDOWELL. Your Honor, she exploited that system for her own personal gain. Wait a minute. MR. MCDOWELL. I'm dealing with a question here. MR. MCDOWELL. I'm not sure it's a CR scheme. MR. MCDOWELL. Well, in one sense, Your Honor, that's the beauty of the scheme. She used a valid process to defraud and illegally induce them to remain here. The government has never contended that this wasn't lawful for her to file these petitions. What our position in our theory of the case is it was illegal for her to use them to market them as a means for these aliens to remain in the United States, well knowing that it wasn't a valid path. And so I think it's important, if you look at this particular case, there were thought fraudulent misrepresentations. There were omissions. MR. MCDOWELL. The fact that fraudulent misrepresentations is that, by saying that the United States needs an alien certification and they have a form of it, they would ultimately be able to become citizens and be covered or something like that. They would be given by the community. MR. MCDOWELL. And that was at the beginning? MR. MCDOWELL. MR. MCDOWELL. So my question is, did you do it? Did you go to the United States and that was the first thing that you did? And then you said it was a simple fraud. You said you would stay in the United States. MR. MCDOWELL. No. MR. MCDOWELL. So you're saying that you can't tell them that you can be citizens. They can't stay where they can all these people. MR. MCDOWELL. No, Your Honor, because what's happened, and this is where her fraud comes in, it's the government is only saying in those two steps, you're not taking an American's job. And it is a- MR. MCDOWELL. That sounds very interesting to the people to be told that they're not being told to take the work with the same significance or with the other part of the thing. MR. MCDOWELL. What the defendant is using the fact that the employer and the government are just checking to see whether they're taking a job. able to determine what the employee needs to induce them to remain and to believe that the services she's offering are going to get them a green card. That's the insidious nature of this scheme. The entire course of conduct was deceptive as to the saying. It's because she took a lawful, the first two lawful steps of procedure and marketed it. They were going to end up where they wanted to be. And that was the fraudulent inducement. That was the schemes they thought they could work at any time. Exactly. And that you'd stay. Those are three false inducements, Your Honor. And also, we think that you have the defendant's admissions regarding her criminal intent. She knew the immigration law. She knew what she was doing was wrong. And here's, I think, the most specific indication of her She knew they weren't following the proper procedure. And that if they followed the proper procedure, they would have to go home. But she told them she didn't want them to go home. She induced them to stay here because through the simple fact that that was she wanted their business. She explained to me that I'm still having trouble and I must be sick with understanding why in what respect that makes her have a criminal intent. I understand with regard to this statute, which is very specific and doesn't have a fraud element. Now, I understand that it makes or a misrepresentation element. Correct. So, if she has to have an intent to violate this statute, how does she do that? Does she have to know about this statute? I don't think you go that far, Your Honor. She had to know that she, according to you, we actually Not, you think they segregate like you and me. It's not that they have to have an intent to violate a particular statute. But they have to know something, that they're doing something wrong. That's what you used to seem to say that she knew she was violating the immigration law. That's not what the statute says. The statute doesn't have a fraud element. It just has knowing it. Incorporated knowing it. So, she is not violating the immigration law. She's violating this law. She knew that. I mean, we went beyond showing she knew she was violating the law, but to this specific one. I'm sorry, I don't understand that. You told me she knew she was violating this statute, the criminal statute, of which she was convicted. No, she was violating two convictions. I think we may have crossed our arms. Unless she knows that it's criminal to do that, then why is it a criminal intent? In other words, yes, we understand that she knew that people, or let's assume that people she was imposing to stay were violating the immigration laws. I see. Correct, Your Honor. That's what I meant to say. That's right. How is that a criminal? It's only criminal because it's this statute. Ask her. She could be encouraging them to remain in the United States, right, in violation of many immigration laws, Your Honor. I'm just saying that she knew that this path she was suggesting was invalidating. I think I've passed my time. There are a lot of points I would like to make, but it's been taken up with this. I think I'd ask that court to affirm these convictions that it hasn't shown as to this particular issue, that even if there was plain air, that, in fact, he was prejudiced in the overwhelming evidence showing her criminal intent. The government, as they have throughout this case, continues to conflate fraud charges with immigration charges. There is no element of fraud in immigration charges. Well, but, you know, in fact, except for all these problems we've been It doesn't appear because, and Helen says there's no legitimate purpose for filing these petitions. That is completely refuted by Mr. Guzman's testimony and Mr. Castillo's, which said there is a legitimate purpose for doing this. You get both petitions approved. You wait for the law to change. You wait for your priority number, and you apply. And you will have a priority over other people who didn't do that because you started the process earlier than them, and you've documented your presence in the country. Here, there was no admission by Ms. Manning's family that it's fraud or wrongdoing. She had a right to file the petitions, and it goes to Judge Reiner, it goes to your points. And, Judge Bergeson, what's the limit to this? A lawyer who files petitions just like this civilian Smith did, or an immigration consultant, or a lawyer who represents a law family in some legal or administrative proceeding, is violating the inducement statute. The courts have put a limitation in the reported cases of all the lawyers and immigration consultants by saying there has to be some false document, some bribery, something where there's obtaining a benefit from the government improperly. Here, Ms. Manning Smith surfaced these people who were hidden. How's that? And she's saying to the Department of Labor, they're here, they're working now, and they want to stay on this job. It gets approved. If you believe the government's argument, it should have been summarily denied. Mr. Guzma testified that there are thousands of those like that in the country under those circumstances. Mr. Wright, the case agent, said Ms. Manning Smith had gotten hundreds of approvals for labor certifications and the I-140s. They should all have been summarily denied. And that goes to her issue of intent. Is she intending to violate the inducement law when she presents these people to the government, gets the approvals, doesn't lie on the form, says, I'm here, I'm working, I want to stay working, and the government says, okay. That's why 11 cases exist in this area. That's a further limitation of false social security card, bribery, and other false documents. The government admitted and the judge said there's no evidence of it. I'm sorry. What happens when you get an I-140 and you're allowed to work there? Yes. No. Not if you're Harold Short. Right? Well. They're approving you staying here. If they wanted to leave, it would be summarily denied. You're here unlawfully. On the I-140. Is that the actual case? You're saying that? It's not so. Well, on the I-140 application for each of these opinions, there's a section that's filled out. When did you enter the country? And it shows they entered the country, overstayed, and were still here. The I-140 plainly on its face says, I have been here unlawfully since, in the case of these two people, at least 2002 when an I-140 is done in 2007. And Mr. Hanks didn't say anything to them about ability to go get a green card. He said the contrary in the chart. The I-140, who authorized you to get the green card? It's, as I understand it, it's the INS, LCIS, sort of the Department of Labor says you qualify. And the I-140 says, from their point of view, no effect. My point is, if you believe they got the green card. The whole idea of it is allow that person to get into these lines. He will. It's the law of change. That's right. So the law inspired the answer to the question, well, what did the I-140 authorize? The answer is zero. Right? Nothing. That is my future hypothetical. Yes, you're correct. You're standing in line. In a hypothetical. And if you believe the government's position that what Miss and Eddie Smith did was criminal, because fraud's got nothing to do with the immigration system, every one of those applications, labor certifications, I-142 and so on, are they denied? You're unlawfully. And how is Miss and Eddie Smith, if anything, her applying on their behalf is in a derogation of encouraging and inducing them to stay here? Because she certainly said it's only from the applicants that they were encouraged to stay. And that was the reason she went and said, well, if I were told, you know what, I'm not going to get it out of my work fee. I don't do the filtering. Isn't that what she said? Well, that's what they say. However, on the instruction issue. Okay. If you have a person who's not encouraged to stay. On the instruction issue where I don't have to do the Rule 29, Heaven's Deference, I put on a cross-examination of a case that said these aliens, when they were first interviewed, as part of the investigation, said nothing about being promised a green card or a right to work. And in that regard, unfortunately, I haven't been able to get to it. I would like the supplemental briefing to address either harmless error or plain error in reminding the evidence, because it's a different standard than the deferential Rule 39 standard. It covered all the evidence. So basically, what the government is saying is any lawyer who helps an unlawful alien filing an I-140 or later certification for an immigration assault is committed a crime. There is no blending by law theory, because fraud is not a law. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your time.