The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Oluwatoyin Aborisade for visa fraud and aggravated identity theft in a split decision issued January 8, 2026. The 2-1 ruling upheld a lower court conviction in a case involving fraudulent immigration visa applications under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
Judge Deandrea Gist Benjamin wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Berner, while Judge Heytens issued a dissenting opinion. The case, *United States v. Aborisade* (4th Cir. 2026), stemmed from charges that Aborisade fraudulently prepared immigration visa self-petitions under the Violence Against Women Act.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore, where District Judge Julie R. Rubin presided. According to court documents, Aborisade was charged with visa fraud and aggravated identity theft related to the fraudulent preparation of VAWA self-petitions.
During the trial proceedings, the district court denied Aborisade's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case-in-chief. Notably, Aborisade did not renew his motion for judgment of acquittal after presenting his defense to the jury, a procedural decision that may have implications for his appeal.
The jury convicted Aborisade on all counts following the trial. The district court sentenced him to 57 months' imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised release. This sentence reflects the serious nature of the charges, which involved both immigration fraud and identity theft components.
On appeal, Aborisade challenged the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions. The Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments in the case on September 11, 2025, with the decision rendered approximately four months later.
Aborisade was represented by Geoffrey J.H. Block of Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., a prominent Washington, D.C. law firm. The legal team also included Tiberius T. Davis from the same firm who worked on the brief. The government was represented by David Christian Bornstein from the Office of the United States Attorney in Baltimore, Maryland, with United States Attorney Kelly O. Hayes also listed on the brief.
The Violence Against Women Act provisions at issue in this case allow certain victims of domestic violence to self-petition for immigration status without relying on their abusive spouse or parent to file on their behalf. These protections are designed to help victims escape abusive situations by providing a pathway to legal immigration status. However, fraudulent use of these provisions undermines the program's integrity and diverts resources from legitimate victims.
Visa fraud cases involving VAWA petitions have become increasingly common as immigration enforcement has intensified. The charges typically involve allegations that individuals submitted false information or documents to support immigration applications, often for financial gain or to help others obtain immigration benefits fraudulently.
Aggravated identity theft charges, which carry mandatory minimum sentences, are often paired with immigration fraud cases when defendants allegedly used false identity documents or stolen personal information in their schemes. These charges can significantly increase potential penalties and complicate defense strategies.
The split decision in the Fourth Circuit highlights potential legal complexities in the case. Judge Heytens' dissenting opinion suggests there may have been substantive disagreements among the panel about the evidence or legal standards applied. However, the specific grounds for the dissent are not detailed in the available portions of the opinion.
The Fourth Circuit's decision adds to the body of federal case law addressing immigration fraud and VAWA-related charges. Circuit courts across the country have grappled with similar cases as immigration enforcement remains a federal priority.
The affirmance means Aborisade's conviction and sentence will stand unless he seeks further review. Defendants in federal criminal cases may petition the Supreme Court for certiorari, though the high court accepts only a small percentage of such petitions for review.
This case reflects broader enforcement efforts targeting immigration fraud schemes that exploit humanitarian immigration programs. Federal prosecutors have increasingly pursued charges against individuals who allegedly abuse programs designed to protect vulnerable populations, arguing that such fraud undermines public confidence in the immigration system.
The decision also underscores the importance of procedural decisions during trial, as Aborisade's failure to renew his motion for judgment of acquittal may have limited his appellate options. Defense attorneys in similar cases often face difficult strategic choices about when and how to challenge the sufficiency of government evidence.
The case serves as a reminder that immigration-related fraud charges carry serious consequences, including lengthy prison sentences and supervised release terms. Federal immigration fraud prosecutions have become increasingly sophisticated, often involving complex document analysis and testimony from immigration officials about proper procedures and requirements.