People v. Hassan
California Court of Appeal
168 Cal.App.4th 1306 (2008)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Ahmed Hassan (defendant) and Ana Deleon were married by a minister in a notary’s office in California in a confidential marriage. Under California law, a confidential marriage required that the parties must have already been living together as spouses prior to the marriage. The notary explained this requirement to Hassan and Deleon, had them sign the marriage license, and submitted the license to the county for recordation. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) suspected Hassan and Deleon of marriage fraud, in which a marriage is entered into to obtain a green card for one of the spouses. ICE began an investigation into the marriage. In the course of the investigation, Hassan and Deleon provided conflicting testimony and suspect evidence to federal ICE agents regarding the circumstances of their marriage and Hassan’s immigration status. Hassan provided several documents to ICE agents that later proved to be falsified, including a purported marriage document from a mosque and fraudulent immigration forms. Hassan was charged under California law with offering a false document for recordation for the state marriage license, and with offering false evidence for the fraudulent documents he submitted to the ICE agents. Hassan was convicted on both counts. He appealed his conviction for providing false evidence, alleging insufficient evidence existed to support the conviction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boren, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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.



