United States v. Hassan Abpikar

MEMORANDUM

Hassan Abpikar appeals his conviction arising out of his false statements in his Application for Naturalization filed with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), an agency which is a component of the Department of Homeland Security, and at a subsequent interview with a CIS adjudication officer. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (a)(1), 1015(a), 1621. We affirm.

(1) Abpikar first argues that the evidence on certain counts was insufficient to support the verdicts. We have carefully reviewed the record and hold that the evidence sufficiently supports the convictions under § 1001(a) (Counts One and Four). See United States v. White Eagle, 721 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2013); United States v. Boone, 951 F.2d 1526, 1544 (9th Cir.1991). It similarly supports the convictions under § 1621 (Counts Three and Six). See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 838 (9th Cir.2003). Abpikar’s argument that his statements were non-responsive but literally true is otiose because, in fact, the record shows that they were responsive and literally false. To the extent that there could be any doubt about Abpikar’s understanding of the questions, the jury was entitled to, and did,…