Second Circuit: Mandatory Forfeiture of Mansion Not Excessive For Harboring an Illegal Alien | Practical Law

Second Circuit: Mandatory Forfeiture of Mansion Not Excessive For Harboring an Illegal Alien | Practical Law

In United States v. George, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a criminal conviction of a woman for harboring an unauthorized worker and further upheld forfeiture of the woman's mansion valued at nearly $2 million as an appropriate penalty under the harboring statute that did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines. The unauthorized worker was employed by the woman from 2005 to 2011, and had worked for the woman in the mansion for part of that time.

Second Circuit: Mandatory Forfeiture of Mansion Not Excessive For Harboring an Illegal Alien

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Published on 04 Mar 2015 • USA (National/Federal)
In United States v. George, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a criminal conviction of a woman for harboring an unauthorized worker and further upheld forfeiture of the woman's mansion valued at nearly $2 million as an appropriate penalty under the harboring statute that did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines. The unauthorized worker was employed by the woman from 2005 to 2011, and had worked for the woman in the mansion for part of that time.
On February 25, 2015, in United States v. George, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a criminal conviction of a woman for harboring an unauthorized worker under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Second Circuit also upheld forfeiture of the woman's mansion valued at nearly $2 million as an appropriate penalty under the federal criminal forfeiture statute that did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines. The unauthorized worker was employed by the defendant from 2005 to 2011, and had worked in the forfeited mansion for part of that time. (No. 13-2762, (2d Cir. Feb. 25, 2015).)

Background

Annie George was convicted in the US District Court for the Northern District of New York of harboring an unauthorized worker under the INA (INA § 274(a)(1)(A)(iii) (8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii))). The unauthorized worker, who was employed by George from 2005 until 2011, claimed that George forced her to work 18-hour days and to sleep in a closet.
George was sentenced to eight months home detention and five years probation. In addition, George was ordered to forfeit her 34-room mansion valued at nearly $2 million (see 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)).
George appealed her conviction on the harboring charge, arguing that the jury instructions were flawed in light of the Second Circuit's decision in U.S. v. Vargas-Cordon, which had been issued subsequent to her conviction (733 F.3d 366 (2013)). George claimed that the court's instructions violated Vargas-Cordon by not specifying that harboring requires an effort to conceal the unlawful worker's status from the authorities, as well as giving shelter to the worker. George also claimed that the evidence offered at trial was insufficient to prove harboring. Finally, George also appealed the forfeiture order, claiming that compelling her to forfeit her mansion violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines.

Outcome

The Second Circuit denied George's appeal, upheld her conviction on the harboring charge and affirmed the order that she forfeit the mansion. In upholding the harboring conviction, the court found that:
  • The challenged jury instructions adequately conveyed both the shelter and concealment elements of harboring and therefore did not contradict the Second Circuit's decision in Vargas-Cordon.
  • The evidence offered at trial was sufficient to support George's conviction on the harboring charge under the INA (INA § 274(a)(1)(A)(iii) (8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii))).
In upholding the forfeiture order, the court found that forfeiture was not excessive in violation of the Eighth Amendment because:
  • It was not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense under U.S. v. Bajakajian (524 U.S. 321 (1998)). Here, the court pointed to George's evasion of immigration, wage and tax laws over a lengthy period of time.
  • George, as someone who had knowingly and actively sought to prevent government detection of an unauthorized worker for her own benefit, fell within the class of people targeted by the harboring statute (INA § 274 (8 U.S.C. § 1324)).
  • George's equity loss from forfeiture of the mansion fell well below the maximum statutory fine under the harboring statute (INA § 274 (8 U.S.C. 1324)).
  • George's crime harmed both the government and the exploited worker and hampered the efforts of other individuals to lawfully obtain employment.

Practical Implications

The Second Circuit's opinion in United States v. George illustrates how criminal charges for harboring and the use of forfeiture (both criminal and civil) are tools used by Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) and federal prosecutors to penalize employers that knowingly employ unauthorized foreign workers. Those mechanisms also seek to deter further violations of the immigration laws.