[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 16, 2008
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 07-14944
CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-22990-CV-FAM
JUAN PEIRANO BASSO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES MARSHAL,
Christina Pharo, Southern District of Florida,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Harley G. Lapin, Director,
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Michael B. Mukasey,
SECRETARY OF STATE,
Condoleeza Rice, United States of America,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 16, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Peirano Basso, a federal detainee, appeals the district court’s dismissal
of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, challenging a magistrate judge’s order certifying his extradition to
Uruguay to face charges of fraudulent corporate insolvency. Basso contends that
the district court erred in finding that the rule of non-inquiry prevented the
extradition magistrate from considering his assertion that he would be subjected to
due process violations if extradited.
Habeas corpus review of a magistrate’s extradition order is limited to
determining whether (1) the magistrate had jurisdiction, (2) the charged offense
falls within the treaty, and (3) the evidence was sufficient to believe that the
defendant is guilty. Martin v. Warden, Atlanta Pen, 993 F.2d 824, 828 (11th Cir.
1993).
In Martin, Martin claimed that the certification of extraditability infringed
his due process right to a “speedy extradition” because Canada delayed seeking
extradition for seventeen years. Id. at 825. We recognized that extradition is an
executive function, derived from the President’s authority to conduct foreign
affairs, and as such, the magistrate’s role is solely to determine whether there is
2
sufficient evidence to support a charge under the applicable treaty. Id. at 828.
After the magistrate issues a certification of extraditability, the Secretary of State
conducts an independent review in determining whether to issue a warrant of
surrender, and in this review, the Secretary has broad discretion to consider factors
affecting both the defendant and foreign relations, which the magistrate may not
consider. Id. at 829. In holding that there is no Fifth Amendment right to a speedy
extradition, we stated that recognizing such a right would violate the rule of non-
inquiry, “which precludes extradition magistrates from assessing the investigative,
judicial, and penal systems of foreign nations when reviewing an extradition
request.” Id. In a footnote, we recognized that several courts, in dicta, have hinted
that a defendant could bring a due process challenge to his extradition based on
humanitarian considerations, but stated that we have never embraced this dictum
and reaffirmed that judicial intervention on the basis of humanitarian
considerations is inappropriate, as these matters are for review by the State
Department. Id. at 830 n.10.
Under the forgoing principles, we find no error in the district court’s
dismissal of Basso’s habeas petition, because the rule of non-inquiry prevents an
extradition magistrate, without exception, from assessing the receiving country’s
judicial system.
3
AFFIRMED.
4