🇺🇸 United States →

The petitioner challenged the certification of his extraditability to Israel, where he was sought for prosecution for attempted murder and related offences arising from an alleged organized-crime plot. He argued that the extradition court lacked jurisdiction because United States authorities had secured his transfer from Malaysia through deception and unlawful conduct, and further claimed that the evidence submitted by Israel did not establish probable cause. The District Court held that, under the Ker–Frisbie doctrine, even an irregular or unlawful rendition does not ordinarily deprive a court of jurisdiction, absent conduct comparable to the extreme torture or brutality contemplated by the narrow Toscanino exception. It also found that the United States–Malaysia extradition treaty did not apply because the petitioner had not been transferred pursuant to that treaty and concluded that the evidentiary record was sufficient to support probable cause. The habeas petition and the request for a stay pending appeal were therefore denied, subject to a one-week administrative stay allowing an application to the Court of Appeals.

The court certified extradition to Peru, emphasizing the limited role of the extradition court under 18 U.S.C. § 3184. The court held that a foreign conviction—particularly one obtained after the defendant participated in trial proceedings—is ordinarily sufficient to establish probable cause. Even assuming the conviction was treated like an in absentia conviction, the detailed findings of the Peruvian courts independently established probable cause. The decision also reaffirmed that U.S. courts do not second-guess foreign criminal proceedings or procedural rulings so long as treaty requirements are satisfied.

The court certified extradition to Thailand after finding that a detailed affidavit from a Thai prosecutor, supported by hearsay summaries of witness statements and financial evidence, was sufficient to establish probable cause. The court emphasized that extradition proceedings are not trials, that hearsay is admissible, and that probable cause may rest on authenticated foreign investigative materials. The opinion also held that, once a court certifies extraditability, 18 U.S.C. § 3184 requires detention pending surrender, rejecting the view that courts retain discretion to continue bail after certification

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.