United States Extradition Law — Case Law, Legal Framework and Procedure
Extradition cases involving United States — Requested and Requesting State
Connected jurisdictions
🇮🇹Italy32 cases🇬🇧United Kingdom4 cases🇩🇪Germany4 cases🇸🇬Singapore3 cases🇹🇷Turkey3 cases🇳🇿New Zealand3 cases🇯🇲Jamaica2 cases🇧🇿Belize2 cases🇨🇷Costa Rica2 cases🇦🇺Australia2 cases🇨🇾Cyprus1 case🇮🇶Iraq1 case🇨🇴Colombia1 case🇨🇱Chile1 case🇷🇸Serbia1 case🇹🇭Thailand1 case🇵🇪Peru1 case🇮🇱Israel1 case🇦🇷Argentina1 case🇿🇦South Africa1 case🇬🇭Ghana1 case🇲🇽Mexico1 case🇵🇱Poland1 case
Key Resources
Case Law
Double criminality not satisfied: alleged insider dealing occurred outside the United States
✕
Summary
The United States sought the extradition of a dual British and Lebanese national to face charges arising from an alleged insider-dealing scheme involving confidential information about companies listed on US stock exchanges. The Supreme Court held that, for the purposes of section 137 of the Extradition Act 2003, the location of the conduct must be determined by identifying where the requested person’s relevant physical acts occurred, rather than where their effects were felt. As the substance of the alleged conduct occurred in the United Kingdom and not in the United States, the stricter test applicable to extraterritorial conduct under section 137(4) applied. Equivalent conduct in corresponding circumstances would not fall within the territorial scope of the relevant UK insider-dealing or money-laundering offences; the Court therefore allowed the appeal, discharged the requested person and quashed the extradition order.
12/02/2025 · Supreme Court of the United Kingdom · [2025] UKSC 3
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇺🇸United States
DeniedExtraditionExtradition may be certified where treaty requirements, dual criminality and probable cause are established for concealing evidence and protecting an offender
✕
Summary
The United States, acting on behalf of the Republic of Türkiye, sought the extradition of Eylem Tok, a Turkish national, on charges of destroying, concealing or altering evidence under Article 281 of the Turkish Criminal Code and protecting an offender under Article 283 of the same code. The charges arose not from the underlying fatal traffic accident — which the record attributes entirely to her minor son, T.C. — but from her conduct in the hours immediately following it: taking a victim’s cell phone from security officers under a false pretext and concealing it, removing her son and two other minors from the accident scene before police could observe or question them, and flying with her son out of Türkiye on one-way tickets within three hours of the collision.Following an extradition hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3184, Chief Magistrate Judge Cabell denied the relator’s motion to dismiss, denied her motion for release from custody, and certified her extraditability to the Secretary of State on both offences. The decision is a companion to In re Extradition of T.C., 740 F. Supp. 3d 10 (D. Mass. 2024), concerning the relator’s son, and it addresses in detail several recurring questions of U.S. extradition law: the minimum-gravity (one-year punishability) requirement and its interaction with treaty accessory clauses, the treatment of foreign-law expert evidence that contradicts the requesting State’s position, the dual criminality doctrine, the meaning of “charged with an offense” in a treaty that does not require a charging document, the probable cause standard, and the “special circumstances” test for bail pending extradition.
11/02/2025 · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · No. 24-MJ-01365-DLC; 765 F. Supp. 3d 46
🇺🇸United States → 🇹🇷Turkey
GrantedExtraditionUS authorities are bound by the principle of speciality under the Italy-US Extradition Treaty
✕
Summary
In extradition proceedings, the judicial authorities of the United States of America—which are constitutionally bound to comply with international treaties—are bound by the rule of speciality laid down in Article XVI of the bilateral Extradition Treaty between Italy and the United States of 13 October 1983. Under that provision, in the absence of the consent of the requested State or conduct by the extradited person amounting to an implied waiver, the requesting State may not detain, try or punish that person for acts committed prior to surrender other than those for which extradition was granted.
06/02/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 8931/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtraditionDouble Criminality and Human Rights Review in Extradition Proceedings to the United States
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the United States against a U.S. citizen sought for:- intentional homicide;- unlawful possession of firearms.According to the extradition materials, U.S. authorities alleged that the requested person killed James A. Richardson in Seattle on 29 December 2019. U.S. judicial authorities subsequently issued arrest and international search measures for extradition purposes. Following the extradition request transmitted through the Turkish Ministry of Justice, the İstanbul 11th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under:- Law No. 6706;- the bilateral judicial cooperation agreement between Türkiye and the United States;- Article 6 ECHR.- An additional decision was later rendered concerning the firearms offence.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the requested person was innocent;- another person had allegedly confessed and was serving a life sentence in the United States;- the extradition materials were inaccurate and unreliable.The Turkish Court of Cassation rejected these objections. The Court held that:- the requested person and the internationally sought person were clearly identified as the same individual;- the offences constituted offences under Turkish criminal law;- the offences were neither political nor military offences;- the offences were allegedly committed in the United States and therefore did not fall within Turkish territorial jurisdiction;- the offences were not time-barred;- no evidence existed indicating discriminatory prosecution, torture, or ill-treatment risks upon extradition.The Court therefore upheld the extradition admissibility decisions.
25/09/2024 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 1st Criminal Chamber · E. 2024/669, K. 2024/5967
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtraditionBreach of the speciality principle by the requesting state does not entail liability of the requested state
✕
Summary
The requested person was extradited from Jamaica to the United States pursuant to a request concerning murder, attempted murder and drug-related offences, but was initially tried and convicted in a different case for an offence not covered by the surrender order. In subsequent civil proceedings, he sought additional constitutional, vindicatory and compensatory damages from the Jamaican authorities, arguing that his extradition had been unlawful and that the principle of speciality had been breached. The Court of Appeal held that the extradition order and the detention preceding surrender were lawful, that no appeal to the Privy Council was pending at the time of surrender and that the Jamaican Government was not responsible for the United States’ subsequent conduct. Although the court expressly found that Article 7 of the applicable extradition treaty had been breached, it held that the breach had been committed by the requesting State and did not entail liability of the requested State; the appeal concerning damages was therefore dismissed.
22/03/2024 · Court of Appeal of Jamaica · [2024] JMCA Civ 16; Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. COA2021CV00018
🇯🇲Jamaica → 🇺🇸United States
DeniedExtraditionA previous foreign extradition refusal does not trigger the international ne bis in idem principle
✕
Summary
In extradition proceedings, the international ne bis in idem principle applies only where a final foreign criminal judgment has determined the responsibility of the same person for the same offence. It does not apply to a previous decision refusing extradition issued by another State. The Court also held that, under the Italy-US Extradition Treaty, extradition may be granted for the US offence of conspiracy even though it does not fully correspond to the Italian offence of criminal association, provided that double criminality exists for the offences forming the object of the conspiracy. The appeal against extradition to the United States was declared inadmissible.
17/10/2023 · Italian Supreme Court · 2108/2023
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtraditionDouble criminality not satisfied for currency smuggling: extradition granted for the remaining fraud charges
✕
Summary
The United States requested the extradition of the appellant to face charges of conspiracy, computer fraud, bank fraud and currency smuggling. The appellant argued, inter alia, that an earlier refusal of the same extradition request by Spain created a ne bis in idem bar, that the offences did not satisfy the double-criminality requirement and that the prosecution was time-barred under Italian law. The Supreme Court held that the Spanish decision, which was based on the absence of assurances concerning the place where any sentence would be served, did not amount to a final determination on the merits capable of preventing Italy from considering the request. It further held that conspiracy and the fraud charges satisfied the applicable treaty requirements, whereas currency smuggling had been decriminalised in Italy and therefore failed the double-criminality test. The judgment was consequently quashed without remand only in respect of the currency-smuggling charge, while the appeal was dismissed in all other respects.
14/10/2022 · Italian Supreme Court · 43049/2022
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtraditionExtradition, difference in penalties and risk of a “de facto” life sentence
✕
Summary
Extradition, difference in penalties and risk of a “de facto” life sentence: case law has already addressed the issue of the sentencing regime under united states criminal law, which provides for higher maximum penalties for certain offences than those applicable under italian law. the possibility that a life sentence may be imposed does not, in itself, constitute a ground for refusing a decision granting extradition for prosecution to that country, given that the us legal system provides for various mechanisms which, depending on the detainee’s conduct, may allow for early release even in the case of a life sentence, albeit on the basis of discretionary assessments by different public authorities—unless the requested person demonstrates a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to article 3 of the echr.
08/06/2022 · Italian Supreme Court · 28417/2022
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtraditionOn the assessment of health conditions’ risk as a ground for refusing extradition
✕
Summary
The Court of Appeal must refuse extradition “where reasons of health or age entail a risk of consequences of exceptional gravity for the requested person.” Such a ground for refusal may apply not only where adequate medical treatment cannot be ensured in the requesting State, but also where the extradition procedure itself is liable to prejudice the person’s health. In particular, such prejudice does not arise from any negative impact on the individual’s health, but only where extradition may result in consequences of exceptional gravity, namely serious and objectively verifiable pathological effects. Accordingly, the Court cannot confine its assessment to verifying whether the healthcare facilities in the requesting State are adequate to meet the person’s therapeutic needs, but must also take into account the concrete impact—and thus the potential adverse effects—of the surrender procedure on the requested person’s health. This includes, for example, the difficulties and possible complications arising from the transfer abroad or the need to avoid interruption of ongoing medical treatment.
25/06/2021 · Italian Supreme Court · 33781/2021
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
DeniedExtraditionExtradition to the United States granted: conspiracy offences satisfied double criminality under the Italy–US treaty
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request by the United States for two requested persons accused in the Southern District of New York of conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy to distribute narcotics. The requested persons challenged the surrender decision on several grounds, including lack of translation of the extradition request, insufficiency of the supporting documents, lack of serious indications of guilt, absence of double criminality, and the existence of related criminal proceedings in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court held that, under the Italy–United States extradition treaty, the Italian court is not required to carry out an autonomous assessment of the evidential basis of the accusation, but only to verify that the summary of facts explains why, from the perspective of the requesting State, it is probable that the requested persons committed the offences. The Court also held that double criminality does not require exact correspondence between the legal classifications in the two systems: the US offence of conspiracy may correspond to Italian associative offences, including criminal association and drug-trafficking association. As to the alleged Italian proceedings, the Court found no total identity of facts and held that any territoriality-based refusal under the treaty was optional and fell within the competence of the Minister of Justice, not the judicial authority. The appeals were therefore dismissed and the extradition order upheld.
06/12/2017 · Italian Supreme Court · 3079/2018
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtraditionPolanski case: refusal of extradition where the sentence has already been effectively served and surrender would be disproportionate
✕
Summary
Extradition may be refused where surrender would give rise to a real risk of violations of fundamental rights under the ECHR, including where the requested person may have already effectively served the sentence underlying the request or where surrender would entail a disproportionate interference with personal liberty; issues may also arise under Article 7 ECHR where extradition relies on the retroactive application of subsequent treaty frameworks to offences arguably time-barred under the previous legal regime. Furthermore, a cassation appeal is admissible only in the presence of a manifest and serious violation of law and does not extend to a reassessment of facts or evidence.
06/12/2016 · Poland Supreme Court · 192/2016
🇵🇱Poland → 🇺🇸United States
DeniedExtraditionActive extradition request granted for murder but refused for an offence outside the treaty list
✕
Summary
The Chilean Supreme Court authorised the submission of an active extradition request to the United States in respect of three persons prosecuted in Chile for the aggravated murder of a United Nations official and for participation in an unlawful association. The Court held that the treaty requirement that the requested persons be “accused” was satisfied by a final domestic order placing them under formal investigation, since that order was based on evidence sufficient to justify their arrest and prosecution. The extradition request was authorised for aggravated murder, an offence expressly included in the exhaustive list contained in the 1900 Chile–United States Extradition Treaty. It was refused for unlawful association because that offence was not covered by the treaty and the list could not be expanded through reciprocity or general principles of international law.
16/05/2016 · Supreme Court of Chile
🇺🇸United States → 🇨🇱Chile
GrantedExtraditionExtradition to the United States partly blocked: double criminality lacking for Iran sanctions charges
✕
Summary
The case concerned a United States request for the extradition of four persons from Singapore in connection with alleged schemes involving the export of goods from the United States through Singapore. Wong and Nam were sought in relation to an alleged conspiracy to export radio frequency modules to Iran in breach of US trade sanctions. Seng and Hia were sought in relation to an alleged conspiracy to export antennae classified as defence articles under US law without the required licence. The High Court of Singapore reviewed the applicants’ detention after they had been committed to custody pending extradition. The Court held that a person may be a “fugitive” for the purposes of Singapore extradition law even if physically never present in the requesting State, provided the alleged offence falls within that State’s jurisdiction. It also adopted a conduct-based approach to double criminality, asking whether the alleged conduct, properly transposed to Singapore, would constitute an offence under Singapore law. Applying that test, the Court allowed Wong’s and Nam’s applications. Their alleged conduct essentially concerned breach of US trade sanctions against Iran, but Singapore had not adopted equivalent absolute prohibitions at the relevant time; treating their conduct as criminal would amount to enforcing a foreign trade policy not incorporated into Singapore law. By contrast, the Court dismissed Seng’s and Hia’s applications, finding that their alleged involvement in exporting controlled military-use goods without a licence would be punishable in Singapore and fell within the extraditable categories under the Singapore–US treaty. Wong and Nam were ordered to be released, while Seng and Hia remained liable to extradition proceedings.
07/08/2012 · High Court of Singapore · [2012] SGHC 161
🇸🇬Singapore → 🇺🇸United States
DeniedExtraditionCountry Contributor
Bruce Zagaris
Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe LLP - Washington, DC
Bruce Zagaris is a partner in the Washington, D.C. firm of Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe LLP.
His practice focuses on international white collar crime, including tax controversy, money movement, international evidence gathering, extradition and INTERPOL, prisoner transfer matters, and the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Bruce has successfully challenged INTERPOL Red and Yellow notices. He has also authored a chapter about INTERPOL in his book International White Collar Crime (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
Since 1985, he has served as editor-in-chief of the International Enforcement Law Reporter, a weekly and monthly journal on international enforcement law.
Bruce has been teaching law throughout his entire career. He has served as an adjunct professor, and since 2016, he has been teaching at Texas A&M Masters Program, the school’s Wealth Management and Risk Management course.
Bruce regularly appears as an expert witness in extradition, evidence gathering, international tax, financial regulatory, and money laundering cases. He has authored and edited six books and many law review and other articles. He has worked as a consultant for international organizations on a variety of international enforcement matters.
His practice focuses on international white collar crime, including tax controversy, money movement, international evidence gathering, extradition and INTERPOL, prisoner transfer matters, and the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Bruce has successfully challenged INTERPOL Red and Yellow notices. He has also authored a chapter about INTERPOL in his book International White Collar Crime (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
Since 1985, he has served as editor-in-chief of the International Enforcement Law Reporter, a weekly and monthly journal on international enforcement law.
Bruce has been teaching law throughout his entire career. He has served as an adjunct professor, and since 2016, he has been teaching at Texas A&M Masters Program, the school’s Wealth Management and Risk Management course.
Bruce regularly appears as an expert witness in extradition, evidence gathering, international tax, financial regulatory, and money laundering cases. He has authored and edited six books and many law review and other articles. He has worked as a consultant for international organizations on a variety of international enforcement matters.
Country Contributor
Joshua Kolsrud
Kolsrud Law Offices - Phoenix
Josh Kolsrud is a former federal prosecutor turned aggressive criminal defense attorney with deep experience in complex international and federal criminal cases.
A native of Phoenix, Arizona, Josh graduated summa cum laude from Arizona State University’s Barrett Honors College in 2004 and received his Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law in 2007.
He began his career at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and later served as Senior Trial Attorney for the Coconino County Attorney’s Office. Josh was then recruited to the United States Attorney’s Office, where he spent more than five and a half years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting cases involving human trafficking, drug trafficking, illegal reentry, gun crimes, white-collar fraud, and other federal offenses with cross-border elements. He successfully authored and won two appeals before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Josh was personally recruited by the Attorney General of the Republic of Palau to lead an anti-human sex trafficking operation in the South Pacific. His efforts helped rescue hundreds of victims from sexual slavery and included prosecuting one of the only jury trials in Palau’s history.
With extensive experience in transnational crime, international investigations, and federal appellate practice, Josh brings unique insight into extradition and cross-border criminal matters.
A native of Phoenix, Arizona, Josh graduated summa cum laude from Arizona State University’s Barrett Honors College in 2004 and received his Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law in 2007.
He began his career at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and later served as Senior Trial Attorney for the Coconino County Attorney’s Office. Josh was then recruited to the United States Attorney’s Office, where he spent more than five and a half years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting cases involving human trafficking, drug trafficking, illegal reentry, gun crimes, white-collar fraud, and other federal offenses with cross-border elements. He successfully authored and won two appeals before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Josh was personally recruited by the Attorney General of the Republic of Palau to lead an anti-human sex trafficking operation in the South Pacific. His efforts helped rescue hundreds of victims from sexual slavery and included prosecuting one of the only jury trials in Palau’s history.
With extensive experience in transnational crime, international investigations, and federal appellate practice, Josh brings unique insight into extradition and cross-border criminal matters.
Country Contributor
Jeffrey Lehtman
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Jeffrey Lehtman's practice focuses on assisting clients with internal and government investigations, global regulatory compliance, and complex cross-border litigation. Client feedback in Chambers Global describes Jeff as "extremely available no matter the issue at hand" and notes he is "business-minded and addresses what needs immediate action first." Clients say "…his advice is outstanding."
Jeff has particular experience counseling clients with regard to civil, criminal, and regulatory issues arising in their international operations, ranging from compliance strategies to mitigate potential risk to internal and government investigations. In addition to counseling clients on issues arising from day-to-day operations, he has represented multinational companies, financial institutions, fintech companies, professional sports teams, international development banks, and their officers and directors in connection with investigations before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), and numerous other domestic and foreign regulatory and government bodies.
Jeff’s substantive experience includes the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, and economic sanctions laws, as well as allegations relating to accounting and disclosure irregularities, insider trading and workplace misconduct. In addition, Jeff has experience advising clients in connection with international extradition matters and international assistance among regulatory authorities (MLATs).
Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg, Jeff was a partner at boutique firms in Washington D.C. and an AmLaw 200 firm. In addition, Jeff was previously Senior Regional Counsel at Citibank, overseeing regulatory, litigation and corporate matters involving Latin America. He also served as a Trial Attorney in the Office of International Affairs within the DOJ's Criminal Division.
Jeff has particular experience counseling clients with regard to civil, criminal, and regulatory issues arising in their international operations, ranging from compliance strategies to mitigate potential risk to internal and government investigations. In addition to counseling clients on issues arising from day-to-day operations, he has represented multinational companies, financial institutions, fintech companies, professional sports teams, international development banks, and their officers and directors in connection with investigations before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), and numerous other domestic and foreign regulatory and government bodies.
Jeff’s substantive experience includes the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, and economic sanctions laws, as well as allegations relating to accounting and disclosure irregularities, insider trading and workplace misconduct. In addition, Jeff has experience advising clients in connection with international extradition matters and international assistance among regulatory authorities (MLATs).
Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg, Jeff was a partner at boutique firms in Washington D.C. and an AmLaw 200 firm. In addition, Jeff was previously Senior Regional Counsel at Citibank, overseeing regulatory, litigation and corporate matters involving Latin America. He also served as a Trial Attorney in the Office of International Affairs within the DOJ's Criminal Division.
Country Contributor
Vahdet Talha Bıçak
Bıçak Law Firm - Chicago
Attorney Vahdet Talha Bıçak is a Turkish attorney focusing on international business law, cross-border disputes, international judicial cooperation, extradition-related matters, investment law, maritime law, and commercial litigation. He is part of the management team of Bıçak Law Firm, an Ankara-based full-service law firm representing domestic and international clients in complex cross-border legal matters.
He currently continues his academic and professional activities in Chicago, United States, where he has further expanded his comparative and international legal expertise. His international exposure and practical experience enable him to work effectively on matters involving multi-jurisdictional disputes, international cooperation mechanisms, and transnational legal risks.
Attorney Bıçak graduated from Bilkent University Faculty of Law in 2018 with advanced English legal training. He also pursued postgraduate studies in international trade and corporate law. During his legal education, he served as President of ELSA (European Law Students’ Association), one of Europe’s largest law student organizations, where he organized and coordinated numerous international legal projects and conferences.
His legal practice includes advising multinational corporations, foreign investors, embassies, and international commercial actors on Turkish and international legal matters. He has experience in international arbitration, cross-border investment disputes, international trade, maritime disputes, compliance, regulatory matters, and international commercial litigation. Attorney Bıçak has also been involved in matters relating to international criminal cooperation, comparative law, and extradition-related legal issues. His growing interest in extradition law, European Arrest Warrant practice, INTERPOL-related matters, and international judicial cooperation has led him to contribute to comparative legal research and case-law analysis in this field.
He is fluent in Turkish and English.
His practice areas include extradition and international judicial cooperation, cross-border litigation and dispute resolution, international commercial law, maritime and transportation law, international investment law, arbitration and mediation, corporate and regulatory compliance, white-collar and financial crime-related matters, and INTERPOL-related international criminal cooperation matters.
Attorney Vahdet Talha Bıçak is a member of the Ankara Bar Association and previously served as President of ELSA Ankara. He currently continues his professional activities through Bıçak Law Firm while further developing his international legal practice in the United States.
He currently continues his academic and professional activities in Chicago, United States, where he has further expanded his comparative and international legal expertise. His international exposure and practical experience enable him to work effectively on matters involving multi-jurisdictional disputes, international cooperation mechanisms, and transnational legal risks.
Attorney Bıçak graduated from Bilkent University Faculty of Law in 2018 with advanced English legal training. He also pursued postgraduate studies in international trade and corporate law. During his legal education, he served as President of ELSA (European Law Students’ Association), one of Europe’s largest law student organizations, where he organized and coordinated numerous international legal projects and conferences.
His legal practice includes advising multinational corporations, foreign investors, embassies, and international commercial actors on Turkish and international legal matters. He has experience in international arbitration, cross-border investment disputes, international trade, maritime disputes, compliance, regulatory matters, and international commercial litigation. Attorney Bıçak has also been involved in matters relating to international criminal cooperation, comparative law, and extradition-related legal issues. His growing interest in extradition law, European Arrest Warrant practice, INTERPOL-related matters, and international judicial cooperation has led him to contribute to comparative legal research and case-law analysis in this field.
He is fluent in Turkish and English.
His practice areas include extradition and international judicial cooperation, cross-border litigation and dispute resolution, international commercial law, maritime and transportation law, international investment law, arbitration and mediation, corporate and regulatory compliance, white-collar and financial crime-related matters, and INTERPOL-related international criminal cooperation matters.
Attorney Vahdet Talha Bıçak is a member of the Ankara Bar Association and previously served as President of ELSA Ankara. He currently continues his professional activities through Bıçak Law Firm while further developing his international legal practice in the United States.
Need legal assistance?
Extradition proceedings involving United States
Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.