Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

United States v. Yoshida

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
303 F.3d 1145 (2002)


The federal government (plaintiff) prosecuted Yuami Yoshida (defendant) for knowingly or recklessly encouraging and helping to bring aliens into the United States, illegally and for commercial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (a)(2)(B)(ii). The trial evidence established that the families of three Chinese aliens each paid a criminal syndicate $50,000 to smuggle the aliens, via Thailand, from Japan to the United States. A syndicate associate made all the travel arrangements and accompanied them to the airport, where Yoshida awaited their arrival. Knowing that the aliens would be unable to negotiate their way through the Japanese airport and onto the plane for their flight to Los Angeles, the associate pointed out Yoshida to the aliens and told them to follow her. Without ever looking at or speaking to the aliens, Yoshida led them through the airport and to the gate. They were the last passengers to board the plane. Yoshida took a seat in the last row, right behind the aliens. After the group landed in Los Angeles, an airport immigration official patted Yoshida down, discovered a bulge in her underwear, searched the bulge, and found it concealed the aliens' baggage claim checks. Yoshida herself carried no bags, and she filled out an immigration form listing her final destination as a nonexistent Las Vegas hotel. Yoshida's passport showed that she had traveled frequently within Southeast Asia during the preceding two months. The federal district court judge denied Yoshida's motion to dismiss the case for insufficient evidence. The jury convicted Yoshida on both counts. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Yoshida argued that the evidence was insufficient to show that she knowingly or recklessly violated American immigration laws, did anything to bring the three Chinese aliens into the country, or was motivated by commercial considerations.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Trott, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 498,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 498,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial