United States v. Liwen Tang

MEMORANDUM

Liwen Tang appeals her jury convictions of two counts of immigration document fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546 (a). We have jurisdiction over Tang’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 48 U.S.C. § 1824 , and affirm.

1. Tang contends that Part 3B of the 1-485 Form, which asked Tang to list her “present husband/wife, all of your sons and daughters,” is fundamentally ambiguous. “A question is fundamentally ambiguous when ‘men of ordinary intelligence’ cannot arrive at a mutual understanding of its meaning.” United States v. Culliton, 328 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting United States v. Boone, 951 F.2d 1526, 1534 (9th Cir.1991)). That is not the case here. The form plainly asked Tang to list “all” of her children; her response identifying only one of her two children was a false statement.

2. Tang also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying her conviction for making false statements on her 1 — 485 Form and to an immigration adjudicator. We review to determine whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States…