In a federal H-1B immigration-related fraud case, Prasad was convicted even after it was proven that his charges failed to pass the statutory muster. The government’s own witnesses, USCIS Director and H-1B immigration subject matter expert, Ms. Monica Verma and DHS Forensic expert, Special Agent Michael Brown (both designated by the court as expert witnesses in this case) foreclosed the fraud debate early when they competently testified that Prasad’s charges failed to meet the statutory requirements. The trial brought forward, and the District Court admitted that Prasad did not misrepresent any "material fact"; which is required by his criminal statute and his indictment. No accused can be convicted of a federal crime if his charges do not meet the statutory requirements. These are imperatives of the American criminal justice system that are non-negotiable. Prasad’s trial attorneys, Mr. James Vaughns and Ms. Navpreet Thandi shared with the District court that Prasad's convictions were unlawful and unconstitutional. However, Prasad’s court-appointed appellate attorney, Ms. Juliana Drous filed the opening brief without his review and consent, without appealing his main conviction, without raising any statutory violations, without any reference to the experts’ testimonies and without any reference to immigration laws and regulations, given his statute affords immigration agencies with authority under the statute (covered infra).

After Prasad disputed the legitimacy of his convictions, the District Court announced in open court that “he [meaning Prasad] has the right to appeal all judgments, all orders of the court, and his convictions”. However, the Ninth Circuit through its court-appointed attorney, Ms. Drous denied him those rights and he was not allowed to appeal his main conviction, including the statutory deficiencies. The justice system failed him.

Prasad was also denied his Sixth Amendment right to a constitutionally fair trial. In this case, the prosecutor, Ms. Audrey Hemesath repeatedly admitted and used several excluded evidence against him throughout the trial, including her closing rebuttal, evidence whose admission and use were firmly denied by a “definitive ruling” before the trial. Prasad’s rights were further denied when the Ninth Circuit allowed Ms. Drous to not appeal Prasad’s “Judgment of Acquittal” which cataloged the applicable statutory deficiencies, given that the right to appeal all his judgments was extended to Prasad as a matter of his rights and Prasad has not waived any of those rights and guarantees at any time.

The Sixth Amendment also guarantees a criminal defendant an effective advocate. Prasad’s main conviction under Title 18, §1546(a) is pivoted on “immigration laws or regulations prescribed thereunder”. Before the trial began, the District Court had granted Prasad’s request for a criminal defense attorney with immigration experience by ordering that “The Court requested a new lawyer with immigration law practice be appointed under CJA panel”. However, four months after her appointment by the same panel, Ms. Drous shocked Prasad on the prison phone when she told him that she did not have any immigration law experience and refused to use H-1B authorities or take any help whatsoever. The Ninth Circuit also overruled Prasad’s requests to have an attorney with immigration law practice. Deprivation of the right is “complete” when the defendant is erroneously prevented from being represented by the lawyer he wants, regardless of the quality of the representation he received (U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006)).

The Ninth Circuit termed Prasad’s request for a counsel of his choice as "superfluous". Not only did the Ninth Circuit overrule his request to review under the statute which challenges the legality of any decision and other rights, but it also completely shut Prasad off by further ordering that “No further pro se submissions by Prasad shall be filed or entertained in this appeal”.

The District Court also ordered that Prasad forfeit all his revenue worth $1.1M of seven years after officially adopting the findings of the Presentence Officer Mr. John Woods, where Mr. Woods investigated the matter and found out, based on statutory and guidelines provisions, that “Forfeiture is not an issue” and “There are no identifiable victims in this offense”. Under Immigration law, Title 18, §1028A under which Prasad was convicted of Aggravated Identity Theft, the law defines “aggravated felony” as an offense that involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000 (see Nijhawan v. Holder, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 2295 (2009); Igiebor v. Barr, No. 19-9579 (10th Cir. 12/7/2020)). Yet, Prasad’s convictions were sustained even after it was found there were no victims and no victim restitution (see Judgment). Thus, several statutory requirements were compromised and allowed to pass by.

Ms. Drous finally admitted to all the statutory violations covered so far but reminded Prasad that “this [issue of statutory violations] would be an issue not raised in the opening brief” nor in the “reply brief”, depriving Prasad of a fair and impartial administration of justice, since Prasad’s best chances of a reversal of his convictions lie in the statutory deficiencies. Such acts are saddening and unconscionable in a nation that claims to have one of the soundest criminal justice systems in the world designed and administered by the crème de la crème lawmakers and officers.

On the behest of the prosecution team, the whole government apparatus has now obfuscated the transparency needed for the fair administration of justice by sweeping the above facts under the rug to ensure the smooth affirmation of Prasad’s convictions. However, today Prasad has the opportunity to be the voice of several small and medium-size H-1B employers who have been wrongfully convicted of H-1B visa fraud and are continually being convicted of the same using erroneous and unlawful standards. Prasad has suffered a lot and continues to suffer. He was placed in a maximum-security ward with first-degree murder convicts even though his alleged charges were non-violent, and he also suffered a heart attack on July 15, 2020.

Prasad’s three trial attorneys in this case, Mr. Scott Tedmon, Ms. Noa Oren, and Mr. James Vaughns refused the plea offers made by the government. Prasad has also not pleaded guilty to any of his charges anytime. 

Based on the foregoing, it is our humble request that the judiciary allows Prasad to exercise his appellate rights and other guarantees, and adjudicate the above case only after the defendant is allowed to appeal all the judgments, statutory deficiencies, and his main conviction in light of appropriate immigration laws prescribed by his statutes, all of which are standard practice and critically important to the fair administration of justice.