974 F. Supp. 2d 1296
D. Or.2013Background
- Paul Garza Mathison (aka Brian Parsons), a U.S. citizen, is wanted in Mexico on fraud charges arising from March–May 2009 allegedly involving ~2.81 million pesos and a BMW; a Michoacán court issued an arrest warrant in October 2009.
- Mexico submitted a formal extradition request through diplomatic channels in 2012; the U.S. sought a certification under 18 U.S.C. § 3184 and arrested Mathison in Oregon in October 2012.
- The Government submitted documentary evidence (Mexican warrant, certified bank records, witness statements, an expert accounting report, bills of sale, photo array) with diplomatic certification by the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico.
- Mathison opposed extradition and moved to refrain from ruling (effectively a stay) to allow his ongoing Mexican amparo (constitutional review) proceeding to resolve alleged procedural and technical defects in the Mexican warrant.
- The magistrate judge held a hearing, denied the motion to refrain (stay), and found the treaty and statutory prerequisites satisfied, certifying Mathison extraditable for fraud.
Issues
| Issue | Mathison's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should stay/refrain from ruling pending Mathison’s Mexican amparo | Stay because amparo challenges warrant defects and extradition would moot some Mexican remedies and risk physical harm from Mexican prisons/cartel threats | No stay: amparo raises procedural/technical claims that won't negate probable cause; humanitarian/credible threat evidence is generalized and not individualized | Denied. Mathison failed to show probable irreparable harm; amparo does not challenge substance of evidence establishing probable cause |
| Whether the extradition treaty applies and dual criminality is satisfied | Argues differences in statutory elements (e.g., U.S. mail/wire element) might matter | Treaty applies; essential character of Mexican fraud equals U.S. fraud (wire/mail element not required for dual criminality) | Held extraditable: treaty in force and dual criminality satisfied |
| Whether there is probable cause to certify extraditability | Claims flaws in Mexican procedures and insufficient proof (signatures, proof of loss) that undermine warrant | Submitted sworn witness statements, certified bank records, bills of sale, expert accounting and photo ID supporting a fair probability of fraud | Found probable cause: documentary and witness evidence create a fair probability Mathison committed fraud |
| Whether the Government’s evidence was properly authenticated | Argues procedural defects in Mexican filings | Evidence was certified by the U.S. Ambassador (diplomatic certification) as required by treaty and 18 U.S.C. § 3190 | Held properly authenticated; certification requirement satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Prasoprat v. Benov, 421 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2005) (describing extradition as diplomatic process and role of Secretary of State)
- Manta v. Chertoff, 518 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2008) (elements an extradition court must address)
- Zanazanian v. United States, 729 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1984) (probable cause standard in extradition)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay factors and importance of irreparable harm)
- Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2011) (stay test and individualized irreparable harm requirement)
- Emami v. U.S. Dist. Court, 834 F.2d 1444 (9th Cir. 1987) (dual criminality and admissibility principles in extradition)
- Skaftouros v. United States, 667 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2011) (deference to foreign procedures and avoiding review of demanding country’s compliance with its own law)