Background
Nawomi Awoga and her adult daughters, Marina Oke and Assiba Lea Fandohan, brought two girls, ages 11 and 14, from Benin to the United States in 2014 using false identities, passports, and a fabricated account for immigration officials. The girls’ families had been told the girls would attend school and have work opportunities.
After arrival, the defendants housed the girls separately and required them to perform daily household labor and childcare without attending school or receiving medical care. Trial evidence showed physical abuse, restrictions on leaving or speaking freely with family, and instructions to hide from visitors and law enforcement. Both girls eventually escaped.
Following a retrial after a mistrial, a jury convicted all three defendants of conspiracy to harbor and shield unauthorized aliens, harboring and shielding unauthorized aliens, and forced labor. The jury also found that Oke and Fandohan acted for private financial gain. The district court denied post-trial acquittal and new-trial motions and imposed prison terms of 102 months for Awoga, 94 months for Oke, and 80 months for Fandohan.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It held that the evidence sufficiently supported the harboring convictions because the jury could reasonably find that the defendants intended to shield the girls from authorities. Evidence included false travel documents, instructions to hide from visitors and police, restrictions on the girls’ movement and communications, and moving one girl after officers came looking for her.
The court rejected the defendants’ attack on the victims’ credibility. Inconsistencies, impeachment evidence, and the victims’ potential motives related to immigration and government benefits were presented to the jury, which was entitled to credit their testimony. The testimony was not incredible as a matter of law and was corroborated by other evidence and witnesses. The court also upheld the financial-gain findings for Oke and Fandohan because the unpaid household work and childcare produced financial benefits.
The sentences were substantively reasonable. Awoga’s sentence was within the Guidelines range, while Oke’s and Fandohan’s were below it. The district court considered the asserted mitigating factors and reasonably balanced them against the prolonged abuse of multiple children, planning, Awoga’s leadership role, and other aggravating circumstances.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate courts generally will not reweigh witness credibility when the jury heard impeachment evidence and chose to credit the witnesses.
- Evidence of hiding victims, restricting their movement, and thwarting contact with authorities can establish intent to harbor or shield unauthorized aliens.
- Free or severely underpaid household labor and childcare can support the private-financial-gain enhancement to an alien-harboring offense.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that § 1324 harboring liability can rest on a broader pattern of concealment and control, not merely on providing a place to live. It also confirms that a defendant cannot convert contested or impeached testimony into legally insufficient evidence simply by disputing credibility on appeal.
For sentencing, the ruling illustrates the substantial deference given to district courts that address mitigation and apply the § 3553(a) factors, particularly where sentences fall within or below the advisory Guidelines range.