Nasrin Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran
414 U.S. App. D.C. 327
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs are three Iranian émigré siblings and the estate of Akbar Mohammadi seeking damages for torture, imprisonment, and extrajudicial killing by Iran and related actors.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, primarily on foreign sovereign immunity under the FSIA and its terrorism exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A.
- Plaintiffs amended the complaint three times; defendants did not appear, prompting default proceedings and an evidentiary damages hearing.
- The district court held the terrorism exception inapplicable because plaintiffs were not “nationals” of the United States during the relevant acts in Iran and because post-2009 conduct did not meet the TVPA definition of torture.
- Plaintiffs sought reconsideration and leave to amend to rely on noncommercial torts exception, but the district court denied; the Court of Appeals affirms, affirming dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The opinion concludes FSIA provides the sole basis for jurisdiction over foreign states, and Alien Tort Statute does not waive immunity or extend jurisdiction here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA terrorism exception provides jurisdiction here | Mohammadi argues terrorists acts qualify as torture/killing | Iran/Guard immunity negates jurisdiction; no US national status | No jurisdiction under §1605A; not US nationals during acts; exception not satisfied |
| Whether plaintiffs were United States nationals during the 1999–2006 acts | Plaintiffs owed permanent allegiance to the U.S. and thus were nationals | Permanent allegiance is insufficient; cannot derive nationality from such allegiance | Not nationals under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22); Lin precedent governs; 1408 not satisfied for them |
| Whether post-2009 conduct constitutes torture or hostage taking | Alleged harassment in the U.S. and abroad amounts to torture/hostage taking | Allegations are not torture under TVPA and not hostage taking | Post-2009 acts do not meet TVPA torture or FSIA hostage-taking standards |
| Whether the district court properly denied reconsideration and leave to amend | Rule 59(e) and 15(a) permit amendment to add §1605(a)(5) basis | Amendment would be futile; new basis not argued in third amended complaint | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed; amendment moot after judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Lin v. United States, 561 F.3d 502 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (permanent allegiance not sufficient for nationality; §1101(a)(22) is descriptive, not conferral)
- Marquez-Almanzar v. INS, 418 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2005) (permanent allegiance not a basis for nationality unless §1408 applies)
- Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 735 F.3d 934 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (recognizes state sponsorship and nationality requirements for §1605A(a)(2))
- Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 646 F.3d 56 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (state sponsorship designation and jurisdictional considerations for §1605A)
- Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (Supreme Court 1989) (FSIA as sole basis for jurisdiction over foreign states)
- Simpson v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 326 F.3d 230 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (TVPA torture definition and its application in FSIA context)
- Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007) (jurisdictional bases determined by amended pleadings; Rule 59(e) considerations)