984 F.3d 1047
1st Cir.2021Background
- Dec. 6, 2013: Dominican officers attempted to arrest Cristian Starling Aguasvivas; Agent Lorenzo Ubri was killed in the encounter and Aguasvivas fled to the U.S. eight months later.
- Aug. 2016: Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) granted Aguasvivas withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), finding it "more likely than not" he'd be tortured if removed to the Dominican Republic.
- Feb. 2017–Dec. 2018: Dominican Republic requested extradition; U.S. filed an extradition complaint; a D. Mass. magistrate certified extradition, finding treaty documentary requirements met and probable cause for murder, firearms, and robbery.
- Sept. 2019: Aguasvivas filed habeas in D. R.I. arguing (1) the extradition packet failed treaty documentary requirements (no charging document/indictment) and (2) extradition would violate CAT because of the BIA ruling; the district court granted habeas on both grounds.
- First Circuit review: held collateral estoppel from the BIA decision inapplicable (reversed that part), but affirmed habeas relief on treaty-document grounds (insufficient extradition documentation) and upheld that magistrate had "any evidence" supporting probable cause generally, while vacating certification as to one listed Dominican offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Aguasvivas) | Defendant's Argument (U.S./Dominican Republic) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA's CAT withholding decision precludes extradition (collateral estoppel) | BIA already found he would likely be tortured on return; Secretary of State is bound; extradition barred | The Secretary is not bound by immigration adjudications; different inquiry (time, circumstances, possible diplomatic assurances); non- inquiry and ripeness defenses | Reversed district court: collateral estoppel inapplicable—BIA issue (removal in 2016) differs materially from Secretary's extradition decision (2020) and Secretary can consider assurances/diplomacy |
| Whether the extradition request satisfied the treaty's documentary requirements (Art. 7) | Warrant failed (misspelled name) and, critically, there is no separate "document setting forth the charges" (no acusación/indictment) as required by Art. 7.3(b) | A copy of the arrest warrant describes the acts and statutes and can "double duty" as both warrant and the document setting forth charges; treaty should be read liberally in favor of extradition | Affirmed district court in part: misspelling in Spanish warrant is not fatal, but absence of a separate charging document (no indictment/complaint) makes the submission insufficient under Art. 7; habeas relief on documentary ground affirmed; certification on one enumerated offense vacated due to mismatch |
| Whether federal courts have jurisdiction/ripeness to consider CAT-based pre-extradition claim | Claim ripe because extradition/detention is imminent and BIA ruling creates immediate injury | Government invoked non- inquiry and statutory limits on review | Court avoided complex jurisdictional holdings but found the collateral-estoppel claim ripe to decide on the merits; nonetheless rejected estoppel on the merits |
| Sufficiency of probable cause for magistrate's certification | Contends evidence is insufficient | Magistrate relied on prosecutor affidavit (eyewitness IDs), video, and medical report; "any evidence" standard governs habeas review | Probable cause upheld under the deferential "any evidence" standard (though some evidence conflicted); magistrate's probable-cause certification sustained generally |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kin-Hong, 110 F.3d 103 (1st Cir. 1997) (describing two-step extradition process and Secretary's plenary review/diplomatic role)
- Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311 (1925) (scope of habeas review in extradition: jurisdiction, treaty coverage, and whether any evidence supports probable cause)
- Emami v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 834 F.2d 1444 (9th Cir. 1987) (treaty documentary requirements do not necessarily require formal indictment; warrant may suffice under some treaties)
- In re Assarsson, 635 F.2d 1237 (7th Cir. 1980) (interpreting "charged" broadly and declining to require formal charging instrument absent treaty text)
- United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992) (treaty interpretation principles)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) (federal habeas jurisdiction and limits on court inquiry regarding foreign sovereign prosecutions)
- West v. Cabell, 153 U.S. 78 (1894) (warrant must name or describe person sufficiently to identify him)
- Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276 (1933) (extradition treaties construed liberally in favor of enforcement)
- Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181 (1902) (courts should not expand treaty obligations or become experts on foreign procedural niceties)
- Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020) (FARR Act implements CAT non-refoulement obligations)