Manrique v. O'Keefe

Background

Alejandro Toledo Manrique challenged his extradition certification through a petition asking the court to review his detention and extradition. The court had previously denied that challenge, and Manrique appealed to the Ninth Circuit. He then asked the district court to stay, meaning temporarily stop, his extradition while the appeal was pending. Alternatively, he requested a temporary stay to give him time to seek a stay from the Ninth Circuit. The government did not oppose the temporary request.

The opinion states that Peru accused Manrique of accepting approximately $35 million in bribes connected to construction of a highway between Brazil and Peru. Peruvian prosecutors charged him with collusion and money laundering, and the extradition court certified that he was extraditable on those charges. The opinion also states that Manrique remained on bail.

Legal standard

The court applied four factors used to decide whether to stay a ruling pending appeal: whether the applicant showed a strong likelihood of success, whether he would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would substantially harm others, and where the public interest lay. The court applied these factors flexibly on a sliding scale, meaning a stronger showing on one factor can sometimes offset a weaker showing on another. At minimum, the applicant had to show a substantial case for relief on appeal.

Irreparable harm

The court held that Manrique had shown probable irreparable harm. It reasoned that extradition while an appeal is pending could make the appeal moot. The court also considered Manrique’s assertions about his age, health problems, prison conditions in Peru, and political instability, and found that these facts provided additional, case-specific support for irreparable harm.

Likelihood of success

The court held that Manrique had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success on appeal. He argued that the Peru–United States Extradition Treaty required Peru to have formally charged him, to provide a particular formal charging document, and to establish probable cause. He also argued that a Ninth Circuit decision concerning an extradition treaty did not control his case.

The court rejected these arguments. It concluded that the relevant Ninth Circuit precedent treated “charged” as meaning accused, not necessarily formally charged; that the treaty did not identify a specific required charging document; and that the government had submitted documents that satisfied the treaty’s charging-document requirement. The court also concluded that both the district court and the extradition court had found probable cause and that the evidence met the low probable-cause standard applicable in extradition proceedings. The court therefore found that Manrique had not shown a serious legal question or a reasonable probability or fair prospect of success.

Public interest

The court held that the public-interest factor weighed against a stay. Because the government opposed the requested stay, the court treated the effects on the opposing party and the public interest as overlapping considerations. It concluded that the public interest favored complying with a valid extradition request because doing so promotes relations between the countries and international law and order.

Disposition

The court denied Manrique’s request for a stay pending resolution of his appeal. It granted his alternative request for a temporary stay. The extradition was stayed until the later of seven days after the order or, if Manrique filed a stay motion with the Ninth Circuit within seven days, the date the Ninth Circuit ruled on that motion.