¶ 8. Thus, Defendant Forero caused false statements to be made in a visa application in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). Defendant Forero also committed at least two counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 by mailing fraudulent applications for foreign labor certifications to the North Case 3:07-cv-00193-JCH Document 67 Filed 02/04/08 Page 55 of 91 41 Carolina Employment Security Commission and the U.S. Department of Labor.

61 Case 4:10-cv-00030-WRW Document 11 Filed 03/01/2010 Page 21 of 34 22 84. These willful, knowing and intentional acts constitute immigration document fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). Unlawful Acts In Support of Racketeering Enterprises Through Interstate and Foreign Travel: 18 U.S.C. § 1952.

Clerk’s Record (CR) 1. He was charged with conspiracy to commit visa fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count 1); aiding and abetting visa fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1546(a) and 2 (Counts 2-5); aiding and abetting unauthorized access of a government computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(3) and 2 (Count 6); use of false documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3) (Counts 7-13); and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (Counts 14 and 15). In summary, the Indictment alleges that, starting in July 2007, Wang and others caused Herguan to submit a petition to admit foreign students and supporting documents to DHS’s Student and Visitor Exchange Program (SEVP), and that these submissions contained false representations regarding Herguan’s students and false transfer letters.

To establish any of their claims against Cognizant, Plaintiffs will be required to show that Cognizant violated federal law by submitting false LCAs to the DOL. Indeed, Exhibit 4 to Plaintiffs’ Complaint makes clear that “[m]aking fraudulent representations on this Form can lead to civil or criminal action under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 18 U.S.C. § 1546, or other provisions of law.” (Compl., Exh.

3. The RICO Case Statement Contains Sufficient Factual Allegations to Meet the Particularity Requirement for Fraud-Related Predicate Acts. Immigration Document Fraud: 18 U.S.C. § 1546 The RICO Case Statement specifies that defendants Star One Staffing, Star One International and Mary Jane Hague engaged in immigration document fraud. RICO Case Stmt.

at 15). They cite no legal authority, and plaintiff is aware of none, for the proposition that once an individual enters the United States and returns home to a foreign country, he can never again be recruited to come back to the United States in violation of I 8 U.S.C. § 135\a. Visa Froud, 18 U.S.C § 1546: Defendants' argument that their mul tiple acts of immigration f raud do not constitute predicate acts because plaintiff actually received visas ignores the nature of their fraud. Plaintiff was promised (and paid for) valid visas, not visas procured by fraud.

See id.; United States v. Jensen, 93 F.3d 667, 669 (9th Cir. 1996). A. Counts Two Through Five State the Offense of Aiding and Abetting Visa Fraud Counts Two through Five track the language of the visa fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), which accurately sets forth the elements of this offense. See Ninth Cir. Model Crim. Jury Instr.

2. 18 U.S.C. § 1546: Plaintiff cannot claim injuries from allegedly fraudulent statements in his immigration applications (Am. Cplt. ¶¶ 143-144) because neither his F-1 nor H- 1B visa was denied; indeed, Plaintiff benefitted from such documents.

See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)(i) (failure to maintain immigrant status is a deportable offense); 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(e) (prohibiting non-immigrant aliens from unauthorized employment and classifying such conduct as a failure to maintain status under the INA); 8 U.S.C. § 1324c (civil monetary fines for use of fraudulent documents); 18 U.S.C. 1546(b) (criminal sanctions for false attestation or document fraud to obtain employment). Congress, however, decidedly did not criminalize the mere performance or solicitation of work by an unauthorized alien, believing that criminal sanctions were inappropriate and inhumane.

2. Plaintiff asserts that Martinez, Hernandez and Harding conspired, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 18 U.S.C. §§1961-68 (“RICO”), to violate 18 U.S.C. §1546, which prohibits making false attestations with respect to immigration documents or using fraudulent immigration documents. USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00015-JVB-JEM document 49 filed 05/31/17 page 1 of 4 2 3.