United States v. Kantengwa

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2015 · Evidence

781 F.3d 545 (1st Cir. 2015)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidencePerjuryMaterialityIssue PreclusionExpert Testimony18 U.S.C. § 1621(1)18 U.S.C. § 1505obstruction

Facts

Kantengwa entered the United States after falsely denying on a State Department Rwanda Questionnaire that she or immediate family members had ties to the MRND or the Service de Renseignment. In later removal proceedings, she testified that she had been truthful on her immigration documents and that there was no roadblock outside Hotel Ihuriro during her 1994 stay there. The government introduced testimony about asylum decisionmaking, evidence that a roadblock existed while she was at the hotel, and expert testimony from Dr. Timothy Longman about the Rwandan genocide and the roadblock. A jury convicted her of perjury and obstruction based on those statements.

Issue

Whether Kantengwa's perjury and obstruction convictions had to be reversed because her immigration proceedings precluded relitigation of materiality or falsity, because the evidence of materiality was insufficient, because the jury instructions on materiality were erroneous, or because the district court improperly admitted expert testimony about the roadblock.

Rule

For perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1621(1), a statement is material if it is capable of influencing the tribunal on any proper matter of its inquiry. Materiality is broad, need not relate to the primary subject matter, need not actually influence the tribunal, and need not be dispositive; it may include credibility and subsidiary or incremental decisions that guide the proceeding. Issue preclusion applies only when the same issue was actually decided and was essential to the earlier judgment.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In removal proceedings in Boston, Lina Mbeki testified under oath that she had always been truthful on every prior immigration form. In fact, she had earlier concealed that her brother worked for a militia-linked security office, a fact that screening officials treat as a reason for further inquiry into possible persecution-related conduct.

If Lina is later prosecuted for perjury based on her sworn claim that all her prior forms were truthful, which is the strongest argument that the statement was material?

Explanation. Materiality under 18 U.S.C. § 1621(1) is broad. A false statement is material if it is capable of influencing the tribunal on any proper matter of its inquiry. It need not be dispositive, need not actually influence the judge, and need not concern the primary subject matter. A lie concealing prior fraud that masked persecution-related red flags can be material to bars to relief, credibility, discretionary factors, and the scope of inquiry.