Edgar Tamayo v. William Stephens, Director, 740 F.3d 991

In 1994 Tamayo shot and killed Houston Police Officer Guy Gaddis after being arrested; he confessed and was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
Tamayo pursued multiple state and federal habeas petitions raising ineffective-assistance, Vienna Convention (consular notification), and Atkins (intellectual disability) claims; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) and federal courts largely rejected or deemed many claims successive/untimely.
In January 2014 the Inter‑American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) issued a decision finding the United States violated Tamayo’s rights and that his alleged mental disability and lack of consular assistance warranted merits review; Tamayo invoked that decision in new state and federal filings and sought a stay of execution and a certificate of appealability (COA).
State courts denied leave for a successive state habeas based on the IACHR decision; the federal district court denied habeas relief and a COA; Tamayo sought a COA from the Fifth Circuit to appeal that denial and requested a stay of execution.
The Fifth Circuit examined whether reasonable jurists could debate that the CCA’s denial was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and whether the IACHR decision creates binding domestic obligations enforceable in federal habeas review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tamayo is entitled to habeas relief based on the IACHR decision (and thus a COA)	IACHR found violations and new evidence of mental disability; federal courts should give effect or defer to IACHR findings so Tamayo can obtain merits review and avoid execution	IACHR decisions do not create binding domestic law; Medellin and subsequent precedent foreclose enforcement absent implementing legislation; claim is novel and successive	Denied — Tamayo failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation; reasonable jurists would not debate the state court’s resolution
Whether the IACHR decision qualifies as a ‘‘new law’’ or binding authority under Texas post‑conviction rules permitting successive applications	IACHR decision supplies new international-law determinations that authorize successive state habeas relief	Texas law requires a new rule from the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal court of appeals, or a Texas appellate court; IACHR/ICJ decisions do not meet that requirement	Denied — state rule and precedent (Medellin) block relief; CCA properly denied leave

Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (ICJ judgment and Presidential Memorandum do not create binding domestic law absent implementing statute)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007) (§2254(d) requires deference; unreasonable application standard is high)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (state court rulings must be so lacking in justification to be unreasonable under AEDPA)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (execution of intellectually disabled persons unconstitutional)