← Back to Case Law
→ 🇮🇱 Israel
1 case foundExtradition habeas review is limited to jurisdiction, treaty coverage and probable cause
✕
Summary
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.
29/06/2026 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 25-CV-05712 (JAV), 2026 WL 1864974
🇺🇸United States → 🇮🇱Israel
GrantedExtradition