PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1810
FARHAN MOHAMOUD TANI WARFAA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
YUSUF ABDI ALI,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-1934
FARHAN MOHAMOUD TANI WARFAA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
YUSUF ABDI ALI,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:05-cv-00701-LMB-JFA)
Argued: September 16, 2015 Decided: February 1, 2016
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Agee wrote the majority
opinion, in which Judge Diaz joined. Judge Gregory wrote a
separate opinion dissenting in part.
ARGUED: Joseph Peter Drennan, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Tara Melissa Lee, DLA PIPER LLP (US),
Reston, Virginia, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ON BRIEF:
Joseph C. Davis, Reston, Virginia, Paul D. Schmitt, Mason
Hubbard, DLA PIPER LLP (US), Washington, D.C.; Laura Kathleen
Roberts, Nushin Sarkarati, Scott A. Gilmore, CENTER FOR JUSTICE
& ACCOUNTABILITY, San Francisco, California, for Appellee/Cross-
Appellant.
2
AGEE, Circuit Judge:
Farhan Warfaa alleges that in 1987, a group of soldiers
kidnapped him from his home in northern Somalia. Over the next
several months, Warfaa claims he was beaten, tortured, shot, and
ultimately left for dead at the direction of Yusuf Ali, a
colonel in the Somali National Army at the time. Warfaa later
sued Ali under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350,
and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (“TVPA”), Pub. L.
No. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73 (1992) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1350
note), alleging several violations of international law.
After lifting a multi-year stay, the district court
dismissed Warfaa’s ATS claims, finding they did not sufficiently
“touch and concern” the United States so as to establish
jurisdiction in United States courts under Kiobel v. Royal Dutch
Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659, 1669 (2013). The district court
allowed Warfaa’s TVPA claims to proceed after holding that Ali
was not entitled to immunity as a foreign official. Both Warfaa
and Ali appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
3
I.
Throughout the 1980s, Somalia experienced a period of
political upheaval. 1 A military dictatorship led by Siad Barre
controlled the country’s government, and Barre’s dictatorship
employed violence and intimidation to maintain control and stay
in power. Among other things, the Somali government targeted
members of certain opposition “clans” through killings, torture,
and property destruction. Warfaa’s clan, the Isaaq, was
targeted.
Ali supported the Barre regime and commanded the Fifth
Battalion of the Somali National Army stationed in Gebiley, the
area where Warfaa lived. Early one morning in December 1987,
two armed soldiers from the Fifth Battalion appeared at Warfaa’s
hut, rousted him from his sleep, and forced him to a nearby
collection point. There, Warfaa and several other local farmers
learned that they were accused of supporting an opposition
organization, the Somali National Movement (“SNM”). Soldiers
then forced the men to march to another village where an army
truck drove them to Fifth Battalion headquarters. Some of the
other farmers were freed, but Warfaa, as a member of the Isaaq
1Because this appeal stems from the grant of a motion to
dismiss, we accept as true all well-pled facts in Warfaa’s
complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to him.
United States v. Triple Canopy, 775 F.3d 628, 632 n.1 (4th Cir.
2015).
4
clan, was detained and placed in a small, windowless cell with
ten other prisoners.
Warfaa alleges he was subjected to many acts of violence
during his detention at the direction of Ali. For instance,
Warfaa claims that soldiers hit him with the butt of a gun, tied
him in a painful position, kicked him, and stripped him naked.
He was taken to Ali’s office, where Ali personally questioned
him about his supposed support of SNM and his rumored
involvement in the theft of a water truck. Later, soldiers
again stripped Warfaa naked, beat him to unconsciousness, woke
him with cold water, and then beat him again. Once more, Ali
interrogated Warfaa after this torture, this time with Warfaa’s
hands and feet chained. During the early months of 1988, Ali
and his soldiers committed similar acts of torture against
Warfaa at least nine times.
In March 1988, SNM fighters attacked Fifth Battalion
headquarters while Ali was interrogating Warfaa. After ordering
his soldiers to defend the base, Ali shot Warfaa in the wrist
and leg, causing him to fall unconscious. Ali thought he had
killed Warfaa and ordered his guards to bury the body. When
Warfaa regained consciousness, however, he convinced the guards
to accept a bribe, and they released him. Warfaa still resides
in Somalia today.
5
The Barre regime collapsed in 1991, but Ali had departed
the country in advance of the fall and immigrated to Canada in
December 1990. Canada deported Ali two years later for serious
human rights abuses, and he then came to the United States. The
United States began deportation proceedings soon thereafter, but
Ali voluntarily left the country in 1994. For reasons not
explained in the record, Ali returned to the United States in
December 1996 and now resides in Alexandria, Virginia. 2
Warfaa, identified only as a John Doe, and a Jane Doe
originally filed suit against Ali in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in 2004. Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the complaint and refiled it in June 2005.
For most of its duration, this case has been stayed. In
August 2005, the district court stayed the case until a party
could provide a declaration from the United States Department of
State indicating that the action would not interfere with U.S.
foreign policy. In April 2012, after the case briefly resumed,
the district court granted a consent motion to further stay the
2It is unclear from the record why Ali came to the United
States after deportation by Canada and why he remains in the
United States. Ali was arrested in 1998 by agents of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, who indicated he was
responsible for “genocidal acts” that “led to the deaths of
thousands of people.” See David Stout, Ex-Somali Army Officer
Arrested in Virginia, N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1998, at A4. The
record contains no evidence explaining the disposition of these
claims.
6
case pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel. After the
Supreme Court issued its Kiobel decision in April 2013, the
district court again extended the stay and invited the State
Department to express its view as to whether the issues before
the court would affect United States foreign policy. The State
Department “decline[d] to express views on the subject” and,
upon further request, explained that it was “not in a position
to present views to the Court concerning this matter at this
time.” 3 J.A. 17, 22.
On April 25, 2014, the district court lifted the stay and
ordered Warfaa to file an amended complaint. Warfaa’s amended
complaint contains six counts: (1) attempted extrajudicial
killing; (2) torture; (3) cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
or punishment; (4) arbitrary detention; (5) crimes against
humanity; and (6) war crimes. All six counts allege torts
purportedly committed in violation of international law, with
jurisdiction arising under the ATS. In addition, the first two
counts -- attempted extrajudicial killing and torture -- are
alleged to violate the TVPA, which provides a jurisdictional
3 Requesting the State Department’s view is common in cases
that implicate foreign policy. The Court “give[s] absolute
deference to the State Department’s position on status-based
immunity doctrines such as head-of-state immunity. The State
Department’s determination regarding conduct-based immunity, by
contrast, is not controlling, but it carries substantial weight
in [the Court’s] analysis of the issue.” Yousuf v. Samantar,
699 F.3d 763, 773 (4th Cir. 2012).
7
basis separate from the ATS. See 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note; Kiobel,
133 S. Ct. at 1669 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (noting the TVPA
addresses “human rights abuses committed abroad”).
Ali filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). Although the motion did not address Kiobel, the
district court subsequently ordered Warfaa to explain “at [a]
scheduled hearing” why his ATS claims were not barred by the
Supreme Court’s ruling. See J.A. 56-57. At the hearing on the
motion to dismiss, the district court stated that it was “going
to dismiss the ATS claims from this case” “on the basis of
Kiobel” because “[t]here is absolutely no connection between the
United States and [Ali]’s conduct in Somalia.” J.A. 66. It
further indicated that it was not inclined to dismiss the TVPA
claims.
In a subsequent written opinion, the district court granted
Ali’s motion to dismiss as to the ATS claims, but denied the
motion as to the TVPA claims. The district court dismissed the
ATS claims because “such claims, generally speaking, must be
based on violations occurring on American soil.” J.A. 78. In
this case, however, “all the relevant conduct . . . occurred in
Somalia, carried out by a defendant who at the time was not a
8
citizen or resident of the United States.” Id. 4 The district
court rejected Ali’s motion to dismiss the TVPA counts,
concluding that Ali could not claim “official acts” immunity
because his alleged acts violated jus cogens norms. 5
Both parties timely appealed. Ali appeals the district
court’s decision to “reject the Defendant’s plea of common law
immunity from suit.” J.A. 101; see Yousuf v. Samantar, 699 F.3d
763, 768 n.1 (4th Cir. 2012) (explaining that a foreign official
is entitled to lodge an immediate appeal from a pretrial order
denying him “common law” immunity). Warfaa appeals from the
final judgment on the ATS claims. This Court has jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
4 We have omitted internal quotation marks, alterations, and
citations here and throughout this opinion, unless otherwise
noted.
5 The district court also concluded that (1) the complaint
alleged sufficient facts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), (2) the TVPA’s statute of limitations did not justify
dismissal, (3) the case did not present a non-justiciable
political question and (4) Ali could not seek protection under
the act-of-state doctrine. Ali does not meaningfully challenge
those portions of the district court’s decision. As to those
issues, his only argument consists of one sentence: “Perforce,
Ali further urges that the fact that the subject matter of the
instant litigation also presents a non-justiciable political
question and an act of state confer further reasons for reversal
of the subject Order appealed from.” Ali’s Opening Br. 10.
Because Ali “does not develop the[se] argument[s] or offer any
explanation for or analysis of his position in his initial
brief,” the Court need not consider them, and we do not. United
States ex rel. Ubl v. IIF Data Solutions, 650 F.3d 445, 457 (4th
Cir. 2011) (finding that a single sentence raising an argument
did not preserve it).
9
II.
Whether the ATS bars claims related to extraterritorial
conduct presents an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, Al
Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516, 520 (4th Cir.
2014), which the Court considers de novo. Johnson v. Am.
Towers, LLC, 781 F.3d 693, 701 (4th Cir. 2015). Likewise, the
district court’s denial of foreign official immunity presents a
question of law that the Court must decide de novo. See Smith
v. Ray, 781 F.3d 95, 100 (4th Cir. 2015) (reviewing a district
court’s decision to deny qualified immunity de novo); Wye Oak
Tech., Inc. v. Repub. of Iraq, 666 F.3d 205, 212 (4th Cir. 2011)
(considering a question of immunity under the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act de novo).
III.
The ATS “does not expressly provide any causes of action.”
Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. at 1663. Rather, it grants district courts
“original jurisdiction” over “any civil action by an alien for a
tort . . . committed in violation of the law of nations or a
treaty of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350.
“Passed as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the ATS was
invoked twice in the late 18th century, but then only once more
10
over the next 167 years.” Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. at 1663. After
1980, ATS claims became more common, often relying on the Second
Circuit’s decision in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d
Cir. 1980). In that case, the Second Circuit applied the ATS to
a claim of torture committed abroad, with all of the acts
involving foreign nationals. Id. at 878, 889. Filártiga opened
the door to more ATS claims and “launched modern ATS
litigation,” Perry S. Bechky, Homage to Filártiga, 33 Rev.
Litig. 333, 336 (2014), but recent Supreme Court decisions have
significantly limited, if not rejected, the applicability of the
Filártiga rationale. See Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. at 1664 (holding
that ATS includes implicit geographic limits); Sosa v. Alvarez-
Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 732 (2004) (holding federal courts cannot
recognize claims brought via the ATS unless plaintiffs premise
those claims on “specific, universal, and obligatory”
international norms). 6
6Warfaa’s citation to Filártiga as contrary authority is
without merit after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel. As
commentators have noted, “[t]he Kiobel Court all but annulled
the subject-matter jurisdiction granted by the Alien Tort
Statute for the very cases for which Filártiga had made it
matter, cases in which the alleged tort occurs within the
territorial borders or waters of a foreign sovereign.” Louise
Weinberg, What We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About
Extraterritoriality: Kiobel and the Conflict of Laws, 99 Cornell
L. Rev. 1471, 1496 (2014). This Court has cited Filártiga once,
in Al Shimari, and we did so only as a passing reference without
any discussion of the Second Circuit’s analysis in the context
of Kiobel. Whatever lingering value in a particular
(Continued)
11
Alien plaintiffs, like Warfaa, have sought to invoke the
ATS as a means to seek relief for alleged international human-
rights violations. The Supreme Court has explained, however,
the reach of the ATS is narrow and strictly circumscribed.
Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. at 1664.
In Kiobel, the Supreme Court considered whether an ATS
claim “may reach conduct occurring in the territory of a foreign
sovereign.” Id. The answer, for the most part, is “no,” as the
Supreme Court has applied a “presumption against
extraterritorial application.” Id. The presumption “provides
that when a statute gives no clear indication of an
extraterritorial application, it has none, and reflects the
presumption that United States law governs domestically but does
not rule the world.” Id. A court that applies the ATS
extraterritorially risks interference in United States foreign
policy. Id. at 1664-65 (“[T]he principles underlying the
[presumption] similarly constrain courts considering causes of
action that may be brought under the ATS.”). Accordingly, in
Kiobel, the “petitioners’ case seeking relief for violations of
the law of nations occurring outside the United States [wa]s
circumstance Filártiga may have, if any, would not apply in a
case like Warfaa’s, where the only pled event to “touch and
concern” the United States is the defendant’s post-conduct
residency in the United States.
12
barred.” Id. at 1669. The Supreme Court emphasized that the
ATS can create jurisdiction for such claims only where they
“touch and concern” United States territory “with sufficient
force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial
application.” Id.
This Court has applied Kiobel only once, in Al Shimari v.
CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516, 529 (4th Cir. 2014). In
that case, four plaintiffs sued an American military contractor
and several of its employees who were alleged to be American
citizens directly responsible for abusive mistreatment and
torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Id. at 520-21. We
recognized that “the clear implication of the [Supreme] Court’s
‘touch and concern’ language is that courts should not assume
that the presumption categorically bars cases that manifest a
close connection to United States territory.” Id. at 528. To
find that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies,
“it is not sufficient merely to say that . . . the actual
injuries were inflicted abroad.” Id. Instead, courts should
conduct a “fact-based analysis.” Id.
Applying this analytical framework, we found that the Al
Shimari plaintiffs alleged “extensive ‘relevant conduct’ in
United States territory,” which distinguished their case from
Kiobel. Id. Based on that “extensive relevant conduct,” the
plaintiffs’ claims sufficiently “touch[ed] and concern[ed]” the
13
United States to establish jurisdiction under the ATS. 7 Id. at
529.
Al Shimari thus is best read to note that the presumption
against ATS extraterritorial application is not irrefutable. A
plaintiff may rebut the presumption in certain, narrow
circumstances: when extensive United States contacts are present
and the alleged conduct bears such a strong and direct
connection to the United States that it falls within Kiobel’s
limited “touch and concern” language. The usual case will not
present the strong and direct “touches” we recognized in Al
Shimari.
An ATS claim premised on no relevant conduct in the United
States will fit within the heartland of cases to which the
extraterritoriality presumption applies. Doe v. Drummond Co.,
7
In Al Shimari, the Court cited five significant points of
contact with the United States: the defendant-contractor’s
“status as a United States corporation”; the “United States
citizenship of [the contractor]’s employees, upon whose conduct
the ATS claims are based”; the fact that the contractor’s
“contract to perform interrogation services in Iraq was issued
in the United States by the United States Department of the
Interior, and that the contract required [the contractor]’s
employees to obtain security clearances from the United States
Department of Defense”; “allegations that [the contractor]’s
managers in the United States gave tacit approval to the acts of
torture committed by [the contractor]’s employees . . .,
attempted to ‘cover up’ the misconduct, and ‘implicitly, if not
expressly, encouraged’ it”; and congressional intent “to provide
aliens access to United States courts and to hold citizens of
the United States accountable for acts of torture committed
abroad.” Id. at 530-31. There are no such contacts, or
anything close to them, in Warfaa’s case.
14
782 F.3d 576, 592 n.23 (11th Cir. 2015) (“[I]f no relevant
aspects of an ATS claim occur within the United States, the
presumption against extraterritoriality prevents
jurisdiction[.]”); Mujica v. AirScan Inc., 771 F.3d 580, 592
(9th Cir. 2014) (“The allegations that form the basis of
Plaintiffs’ claims exclusively concern conduct that occurred in
Colombia.”); Chowdhury v. Worldtel Bangl. Holding, Ltd., 746
F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 2014) (“[A]ll the relevant conduct set
forth in plaintiff’s complaint occurred in Bangladesh, and
therefore plaintiff’s claim brought under the ATS is barred.”);
Cardona v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., 760 F.3d 1185, 1191
(11th Cir. 2014) (holding that the presumption applied because
the alleged torture “occurred outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States”); Balintulo v. Daimler AG,
727 F.3d 174, 189 (2d Cir. 2013) (“Kiobel forecloses the
plaintiffs’ claims because the plaintiffs have failed to allege
that any relevant conduct occurred in the United States.”).
Warfaa’s cross-appeal asks the Court to apply Kiobel and Al
Shimari to permit a claim against a U.S. resident, Ali, arising
out of conduct that occurred solely abroad. We analyze that
claim by beginning with Kiobel’s strong presumption against
extraterritorial application of the ATS, recognizing Al Shimari
is the rare case to rebut the presumption.
15
Warfaa’s claims fall squarely within the ambit of Kiobel’s
broad presumption against extraterritorial application of the
ATS. 8 As with Kiobel, in this case, “all of the relevant conduct
took place outside the United States,” in Somalia. Kiobel, 133
S. Ct. at 1669. Nothing in this case involved U.S. citizens,
the U.S. government, U.S. entities, or events in the United
States. The alleged campaign of torture and intimidation was
launched, managed and controlled by the Somali army. Ali
inflicted all the injuries against Warfaa in Somalia. Warfaa’s
ultimate escape -- thus ending the violation -- occurred in
Somalia, as well.
The only purported “touch” in this case is the happenstance
of Ali’s after-acquired residence in the United States long
8
The dissent suggests that Kiobel applies only to corporate
defendants, not natural persons like Ali. Nothing in Kiobel
lends support to that argument. Instead, the Supreme Court
painted with broad strokes when discussing the scope and
purposes of the presumption against extraterritorial application
of the ATS, purposes which apply with equal force when it comes
to natural person defendants. Further, the dissent correctly
recognizes that post-Kiobel no Circuit Court has permitted an
ATS claim premised on individual liability to proceed in the
absence of any cognizable “touches” within the United States.
Dissenting Op. 21. Nonetheless, the dissent relies on Sexual
Minorities Uganda v. Lively, 960 F. Supp. 2d 304 (D. Mass.
2013), for the proposition that citizenship status distinguishes
this case from Kiobel. Ali, however, is not a United States
citizen, and the facts alleged in Lively have no correlation to
the allegations pled in this case. For example, in Lively, “the
Amended Complaint allege[d] that the tortious acts committed by
Defendant took place to a substantial degree within the United
States, over many years, with only infrequent actual visits to
Uganda.” Id. at 321.
16
after the alleged events of abuse. 9 Mere happenstance of
residency, lacking any connection to the relevant conduct, is
not a cognizable consideration in the ATS context. See Kiobel,
133 S. Ct. at 1669 (indicating the defendant’s “mere . . .
presence” in the United States does not afford jurisdiction).
“Kiobel’s resort to the presumption against extraterritoriality
extinguishes . . . ATS cases [with foreign parties and conduct],
at least where all of the relevant conduct occurs outside the
United States, even when the perpetrator later moves to the
United States.” Bechky, supra, at 343. 10
In sum, Warfaa has pled no claim which “touches and
concerns” the United States to support ATS jurisdiction. The
district court thus did not err in granting Ali’s motion to
dismiss the ATS counts in the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. 11
9 The dissent’s representation that Ali has sought “safe
haven” here, Dissenting Op. 21, 28, is the dissent’s
characterization alone, and is not reflected in Warfaa’s
pleadings or the record in this case.
10 The dissent implies some sort of military aid by the
United States to Ali. Dissenting Op. 26-27. Such a claim was
never pled, briefed or argued by Warfaa, and derives only from a
factual reference in Ali’s brief. Ali’s Opening Br. 8. The
record is devoid of any connection between Ali’s alleged conduct
in Somalia and some U.S. Military contact. The dissent’s
comments in this regard are pure speculation.
11 To the extent the district court’s opinion reads Kiobel
as creating a categorical rule barring the ATS’ application to
conduct solely outside the United States, that reading is
overbroad. Al Shimari makes clear that extensive and direct
(Continued)
17
IV.
The district court allowed Warfaa’s TVPA claims to go
forward, finding Ali lacked foreign official immunity for jus
cogens violations under Yousuf v. Samantar, 699 F.3d 763, 777
(4th Cir. 2012). In Samantar, we held that foreign official
immunity could not be claimed “for jus cogens violations, even
if the acts were performed in the defendant’s official
capacity.” Id. Ali does not contest that the misdeeds alleged
in the complaint violate jus cogens norms; he concedes that they
do. Rather, his challenge is a simple one: Samantar was wrongly
decided, and jus cogens violations deserve immunity.
Ali would have us overrule Samantar entirely, but that
course is not open to us. One panel’s “decision is binding, not
only upon the district court, but also upon another panel of
this court -- unless and until it is reconsidered en banc.” Doe
v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 529 F.2d 638, 642 (4th Cir.
1975); see also, e.g., United States v. Spinks, 770 F.3d 285,
289-90 (4th Cir. 2014). True, the Court has the “statutory and
constitutional power” to reconsider its own decisions. McMellon
v. United States, 387 F.3d 329, 334 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
“touches” involving the United States may rebut the presumption
in some cases. Warfaa simply has none.
18
But we have decided collectively not to exercise that power as a
“matter of prudence” outside the en banc context. Id. The
district court properly concluded Samantar forecloses Ali’s
claim to foreign official immunity.
V.
For the reasons described above, the district court
correctly held that Warfaa’s ATS claims lacked a sufficient
nexus with the United States to establish jurisdiction over
those claims. The district court also correctly rejected Ali’s
claim of foreign official immunity. The district court’s
judgment is therefore
AFFIRMED.
19
GREGORY, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in
part:
I write separately to dissent from Part III of the majority
opinion, as I would hold that the Supreme Court’s decision in
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013),
does not foreclose the possibility of relief under the Alien
Tort Statute (“ATS”) here.
I.
In Kiobel, a group of Nigerian political asylees brought
suit against Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, Shell Transport and
Trading Company, and their joint subsidiary, Shell Petroleum
Development Company of Nigeria, alleging that these companies
aided and abetted the Nigerian government in committing human
rights abuses against them. 133 S. Ct. at 1662-63. The
defendants’ only contacts with the United States were “listings
on the New York Stock Exchange and an affiliation with a public
relations office in New York.” Mujica v. AirScan Inc., 771 F.3d
580, 591 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. at 1662-63;
id. at 1677-78 (Breyer, J., concurring)). The Court explained
that “[c]orporations are often present in many countries, and it
would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence
suffices” to displace the presumption against
extraterritoriality. Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. at 1669. The Court,
20
however, was “careful to leave open a number of significant
questions regarding the reach and interpretation of the Alien
Tort Statute.” Id. (Kennedy, J., concurring).
Following Kiobel, a number of our sister circuits have
considered and rejected ATS claims brought against U.S.
corporations and their corporate officers for aiding and
abetting foreign actors who commit human rights abuses. See
Maj. Op. 14-15 (citing Doe v. Drummond Co., 782 F.3d 576, 601
(11th Cir. 2015); Chowdhury v. Worldtel Bangladesh Holding,
Ltd., 746 F.3d 42, 45 (2d Cir. 2014); Cardona v. Chiquita Brands
Int’l Inc., 760 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 (11th Cir. 2014); Mujica, 771
F.3d at 596; Balintulo v. Daimler AG, 727 F.3d 174, 179 (2d Cir.
2013)). But no circuit court has decided a post-Kiobel ATS case
premised on principal liability brought against an individual
defendant who has sought safe haven in the United States, a key
difference the majority does not address. This is not to
suggest that Kiobel applies only to corporate defendants, see
Maj. Op. 16 n. 8, but that the analysis and relevant
considerations may differ where the defendant is a natural
person.
Several cases brought prior to Kiobel considered situations
involving individual, natural-person defendants—facts more akin
to those presented here. In Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d
876, 878 (2d Cir. 1980), two Paraguayan citizens brought an
21
action against Pena-Irala (“Pena”), a Paraguayan police officer,
for the torture and death of a relative. Pena had come to the
United States, overstayed his visitor’s visa, and had been
residing in the United States for over nine months when one of
the plaintiffs served him with a summons and civil complaint.
Id. at 878-79. While acknowledging that “the Alien Tort Statute
ha[d] rarely been the basis for jurisdiction during its long
history,” the Second Circuit found “little doubt” that the
action was properly in federal court. Id. at 887. “This is
undeniably an action by an alien, for a tort only, committed in
violation of the law of nations.” Id. Thus, jurisdiction under
the ATS was proper. Id. at 889; see also Kadic v. Karadzic, 70
F.3d 232, 236-37 (2d Cir. 1995) (finding jurisdiction for ATS
claims brought by Croat and Muslim citizens of Bosnia-
Herzegovina against Bosnian-Serb leader for violations of the
law of nations committed during the Bosnian civil war); In re
Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litig., 978 F.2d 493,
503 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding jurisdiction for ATS claim brought
by Philippine citizen against former Philippine official for
violations of the law of nations committed abroad).
The majority states that “recent Supreme Court decisions
have significantly limited, if not rejected, the applicability
of the Filartiga rationale.” Maj. Op. 11 (citing Kiobel, 133 S.
Ct. at 1664; Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 732 (2004)).
22
Nothing in those opinions, however, explicitly overrules
Filartiga or its progeny. In fact, the Supreme Court in Sosa
“referred to [Filartiga and Marcos] with approval, suggesting
that the ATS allowed a claim for relief in such circumstances.”
Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. at 1675 (Breyer, J., concurring) (citing
Sosa, 542 U.S. at 732). Even Congress has recognized that
Filartiga was “met with general approval.” H.R. Rep. No. 102-
367, pt. 1, at 4 (1991); S. Rep. No. 102-249, at 4 (1991).
Therefore, Filartiga is still good law, and its reasoning is
instructive here.
II.
This case involves “allegations of serious violations of
international law” committed by a natural person who has sought
safe haven within our borders and includes claims that are not
covered by the Torture Victim Protection Act nor “the reasoning
and holding” of Kiobel. Id. at 1669 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
Thus, the “proper implementation of the presumption against
extraterritorial application” in this case requires “further
elaboration and explanation.” Id. Blithely relying on the fact
that the human rights abuses occurred abroad ignores the myriad
ways in which this claim touches and concerns the territory of
the United States.
23
As the majority correctly states, “claims” are cognizable
under the ATS where they “touch and concern the territory of the
United States . . . with sufficient force to displace the
presumption against extraterritorial application.” Maj. Op. 13
(citing Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. at 1669). The Supreme Court’s use of
“claim”—rather than conduct—to describe the circumstances in
which the presumption may be displaced, however, “suggest[s]
that courts must consider all the facts that give rise to ATS
claims, including the parties’ identities and their relationship
to the causes of action.” Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech.,
Inc., 758 F.3d 516, 527 (4th Cir. 2014).
If we consider, as we must, a “broader range of facts than
the location where the plaintiff[] actually sustained [his]
injuries,” there are three facts that distinguish this case from
Kiobel. Id. at 529. First, Ali’s status as a lawful permanent
resident alone distinguishes this case from Kiobel, where the
corporate defendant was merely “present.” Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. at
1669. This Court found a defendant’s citizenship status to be a
relevant “touch” in Al Shimari, where we observed that such
“case[s] do[] not present any potential problems associated with
bringing foreign nationals into United States courts to answer
for conduct committed abroad, given that the defendants are
United States citizens.” Al Shimari, 758 F.3d at 530 (citing
Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively, 960 F. Supp. 2d 304, 322 (D.
24
Mass. 2013) (holding that Kiobel did not bar ATS claims against
an American citizen, in part because “[t]his is not a case where
a foreign national is being hailed into an unfamiliar court to
defend himself”)). To the extent that we rely on citizenship
status as a factor, we do so in the good company of our dear
colleagues sitting on this very Court. See Maj. Op. 16, n. 8.
As a legal permanent resident, Ali “has a binding tie to the
United States and its court system.” Yousuf v. Samantar, 699
F.3d 763, 778 (4th Cir. 2012); see also id. at 767 (finding
relevant the fact that U.S. residents “who enjoy the protections
of U.S. law ordinarily should be subject to the jurisdiction of
the courts”).
Second, Ali’s “after-acquired residence” in this country is
not mere “happenstance.” Maj. Op. 16. Ali was in the United
States when he “realiz[ed] that the Barre regime was about to
fall.” Decl. of Ali ¶ 15, Br. in Supp. of Def.’s Renewed Mot.
to Dismiss at 1, Warfaa v. Ali, 33 F. Supp. 3d 653 (2014) (No.
1:05-cv-701), ECF No. 91. He initially sought refugee status in
Canada. Id. at ¶ 15. Canada deported Ali back to the United
States for gross human rights abuses committed in Somalia. Id.
at ¶ 18; J.A. 74. When confronted with deportation proceedings
upon entering the United States, he voluntarily departed, only
to return two years later on a spousal visa. Decl. of Ali ¶ 22.
In 1997, Ali was confronted with deportation proceedings yet
25
again but prevailed at trial to have proceedings terminated.
Id. at ¶ 23. The government did not appeal. Id. He has been
living here as a lawful permanent resident, availing himself of
the benefits and privileges of U.S. residency since 1996.
Lastly, when the alleged acts of torture took place, Ali
was serving as a commander in the Somali National Army. In that
same capacity, he received extensive military training, on
numerous occasions, in the United States. The details of these
contacts, which took place prior to and following the alleged
acts, are laid out by Ali himself in a declaration to the
district court. 1 In 1984, Ali received special military training
with the Officers’ Advanced Military Course at Fort Benning,
Georgia. Decl. of Ali ¶ 8, Br. in Supp. of Def.’s Renewed Mot.
to Dismiss at 1, Warfaa v. Ali, 33 F. Supp. 3d 653 (2014) (No.
1:05-cv-701), ECF No. 91. Later that year, he returned to Fort
Benning where he completed six months of intensive military
training. Id. at ¶ 10. In 1985, he was invited by a
representative of the Defense Intelligence Agency to pursue
further military training at Fort Leavenworth, where he spent a
1
Ali’s military training in the United States is a relevant
“touch” and the fact that it was brought to the Court’s
attention solely by Ali himself does not insulate it from our
consideration. Cf. United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 793
(4th Cir. 2012) (“[W]hen a requirement goes to subject-matter
jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider sua sponte issues
that the parties have disclaimed or have not presented.”
(quoting Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 648 (2012)).
26
year, before returning to Somalia in July of 1986. Id.
Finally, he received training in management studies with the
U.S. Air Force at Keesler Air Force Base a mere two years after
the acts alleged against him in this case. Id. at ¶ 10. This
is not to suggest that the U.S. government condoned or endorsed
defendant’s conduct, but these contacts are clearly relevant to
a test that requires us to consider whether a claim “touch[es]
and concern[s] the territory of the United States.” 2 Kiobel, 133
S. Ct. at 1669. When pressed at oral argument, even counsel for
Ali did not deny that a “prior relationship,” such as the
military training at issue here, would “perhaps” be something to
consider as part of the touch and concern inquiry. Oral
Argument at 34:44.
Whatever the extent of the relationship between Ali and the
U.S. military, it cannot be fairly said that “[t]he only
purported ‘touch’ in this case is the happenstance of Ali’s
after-acquired residence in the United States long after the
alleged events of abuse.” Maj. Op. 16-17.
2
See George James, Somalia’s Overthrown Dictator, Mohammed
Siad Barre, Is Dead, N.Y. Times, Jan. 3, 1995, at C41 (“Somalia
received military and economic aid from the United States for a
promise of American use of the port of Berbera on the Gulf of
Aden. But aid declined drastically as allegations of human
rights abuses rose.”).
27
III.
The majority today allows a U.S. resident to avoid the
process of civil justice for allegedly “commit[ting] acts abroad
that would clearly be crimes if committed at home.” United
States v. Bollinger, 798 F.3d 201, 219 (4th Cir. 2015)
(upholding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c) under
the Foreign Commerce Clause). The precedential effect of this
holding “could undoubtedly have broad ramifications on our
standing in the world, potentially disrupting diplomatic and
even commercial relationships.” Id.
It is not the extraterritorial application of the ATS in
the instant case that “risks interference in United States
foreign policy,” but rather, providing safe haven to an
individual who allegedly committed numerous atrocities abroad.
Maj. Op. 12. This was the case in Filartiga, where, as here,
“[t]he individual torturer was found residing in the United
States.” Suppl. Br. for United States as Amicus Curiae in
Partial Supp. of Affirmance at 4, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch
Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) (No. 10-1491). These are
“circumstances that could give rise to the prospect that this
country would be perceived as harboring the perpetrator,”
thereby “seriously damag[ing] the credibility of our nation’s
commitment to the protection of human rights.” Id. at 19
(citing Mem. for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 22-23,
28
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d. 1979) (No. 79-6090)).
Such concerns are precisely what led the United States, writing
as amicus in Kiobel, to conclude that “allowing suits based on
conduct occurring in a foreign country in the circumstances
presented in Filartiga is consistent with the foreign relations
interests of the United States, including the promotion of
respect for human rights.” Suppl. Br. for the United States in
Partial Supp. of Affirmance at 4-5, Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. 1659
(2013) (No. 10-1491).
The ATS has not been completely abrogated by Kiobel. It is
still a statute, and Congress meant something by it. The fact
that the alleged torts occurred outside our borders cannot be
the end of the story; what we are dealing with, after all, is
the Alien Tort Statute.
Ali is alleged to have committed gross human rights abuses,
for which he was deported from Canada, and is now a lawful
permanent resident. The United States is the sole forum in
which he is amenable to suit. The atrocious nature of these
allegations, the extensive contacts with the United States, and
the context of those contacts renders jurisdiction proper under
the ATS. I would reverse the district court’s summary dismissal
of the ATS claims and find that Warfaa has pleaded sufficient
facts showing that his claim touches and concerns the territory
29
of the United States. I respectfully dissent from the
majority’s holding on this issue.
30