Dahiya Law Offices LLC
75 Maiden Lane Suite 606
New York NY 10038
Socials
© 2022 Dahiya Law Offices | www.legalpundit.com
Immigration law violation as a predicate for private RICO claim
Civil RICO claim can be a powerful remedy against the immigration law offending party. “Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefore in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorneys fee.” 18 U.S.C. § 1964. Criminal violation of immigration laws can be a basis to bring a civil claim for damages. Section 1961(1)(F) includes as racketeering activity any act punishable under immigration laws. Different provisions under the Immigration and Nationality Act like section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose), if the act indictable under such section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain are grounds for bringing a civil RICO claim. Thus, anyone who knowingly (1) hire at least ten individuals during a twelve-month period with actual knowledge that the individuals are illegal aliens; (2) bring or attempt to bring illegal aliens into the United States; (3) encourage illegal alien to come, enter, or reside in the United States; or (4) conceal, harbor, or shield an illegal alien from detection, or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield an illegal alien from detention. Harboring is given a very liberal reading. It “comprises a wide range of conduct, including providing illegal aliens housing, transportation, arranging sham marriages, assisting them in getting employment, teaching them to hide their illegal identity, and ‘shelter[ing] [illegal aliens] from the immigration authorities and shield[ing] [them] from observation to prevent their discovery.’”
Similarly, the 6th Circuit too found legal employees as direct victims of immigration violation in Williams v. Mohawk Indus. Inc. 465 F. 3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2006). In Mohawk Industries case, there were serious allegations against this carpet manufacturer that it transported, harbored and hired illegal aliens depressing wages payable to the legal documented workers. The illegal workers were supplied by independent recruiters, who also assisted in preparation of fraudulent paperwork including social security numbers. Thus, all of them were properly made parties to the lawsuit. For bringing action based on indictable immigration offence, one has to show injury to property interest. Employment in itself is not a property right, also any personal injuries types like loss of earnings, loss of consortium, loss of guidance, mental anguish, and pain and suffering would not be considered injury to the property. Injury must be to the business or the property.
This provision was used for the first time in an action under civil RICO filed in Connecticut in 2000. In this case a group of office cleaning companies brought a civil RICO claim against a competitor for lost profit as the competitor employed illegal aliens enabling it to underbid for the contracts, as the competitor was not paying the market wages to such illegal aliens. Though the lawsuit was initially dismissed, it was reinstated by the second circuit finding injury to the plaintiff because the purpose of the hiring scheme was to undercut competitors. The case was settled on plaintiff’s terms. This case provided a push for filing other cases by employees or competitors of such companies, who have successfully argued that the offending parties violated racketeering statute by hiring or harboring undocumented workers destroying competition by depressing wages. In 2002, in another case in California, the ninth circuit court of appeals sustained the RICO claims of the workers relying on Commercial Cleaning case. Mendoza v, Zirkle Fruit Co. 301 F.3d 1163, 1169 (9thCir.2002).