987 F.3d 1063
Fed. Cir.2021Background
- Sharifi alleges land in Deh-e-Kowchay, Arghandab District, Kandahar, originally acquired by his grandfather, was taken when the US Army built Combat Outpost Millet in 2010.
- Sharifi claims he and siblings subdivided the inherited lot by a 2004 inheritance agreement; he attached Afghan government letters (District Governor verifications) and a diagram to his amended complaint.
- The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6), arguing Sharifi failed to plead a cognizable property interest because his documents do not meet Afghan law standards for proof of ownership; it submitted declarations and an Afghan-law expert.
- The Court of Federal Claims required a more definite statement, then held the submitted Afghan records and the 2004 inheritance agreement did not constitute proof of ownership under Afghan law and dismissed for failure to state a takings claim.
- On appeal the Federal Circuit reviewed de novo, considered Rule 44.1 authority to consult foreign-law materials, and affirmed the dismissal for lack of a cognizable property interest under Afghan law.
Issues
| Issue | Sharifi's Argument | United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consideration of foreign-law materials and attached exhibits converted the 12(b)(6) motion into summary judgment | Exhibits were part of the amended complaint; court applied 12(b)(6) standard | Court relied on matters outside the pleadings and should have treated motion as summary judgment | Not converted; court permissibly consulted foreign-law materials under RCFC 44.1 and applied 12(b)(6) correctly |
| Whether Sharifi pleaded a cognizable property interest under Afghan law | Letters from the District Governor and the 2004 inheritance agreement prove ownership | The submitted records do not fall within Afghan law's recognized categories of proof (formal registered documents, court decrees, etc.) | Dismissal affirmed; documents do not establish an ownership interest recognized by Afghan law |
| Whether customary/informal local practices can establish a compensable property interest | Customary law and informal practices can establish ownership where formal title is uncommon | Afghan civil law governs and requires one of the specified document types; custom was not shown for Arghandab | Rejected; record does not show customary law applies in Arghandab and customary proof insufficient |
| Whether the 2004 inheritance agreement functioned as a registered title document | Agreement included a diagram and was verified/registered by the District Governor | District governors lack authority under Afghan law to certify inheritance as registered title; only courts can | Agreement insufficient to show recognized title; therefore cannot establish a cognizable property interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a claim plausible on its face)
- Alimanestianu v. United States, 888 F.3d 1374 (cognizable property interest required for Fifth Amendment takings)
- Maritrans Inc. v. United States, 342 F.3d 1344 (property rights defined by independent sources of law)
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (background principles of law define property for takings)
- Yaist v. United States, 656 F.2d 616 (discussing equitable title under state law; distinguished)
- Athey v. United States, 908 F.3d 696 (standard of review for dismissal)
- Easter v. United States, 575 F.3d 1332 (court discretion on accepting extra-pleading material)