## Facts

- Albania requested the extradition of Krenar Hoxha, a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Albania, to face trial for the murders of a married couple and their son.
- In the extradition record, a surviving daughter allegedly identified Hoxha as the shooter; additional materials included witness statements placing Hoxha near the victims’ home with a gun and evidence that a relative possessed the murder weapon.
- A U.S. magistrate judge held an extradition hearing under the U.S.–Albania treaty, found murder to be an extraditable offense, and concluded the submissions established probable cause.
- The magistrate judge certified Hoxha as extraditable and forwarded the certification to the Secretary of State.
- Hoxha petitioned for habeas corpus in federal district court, arguing (1) the evidence was insufficient, emphasizing an alleged recantation and reliability problems, and (2) extradition would expose him to torture in Albania in violation of Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and related U.S. law, including the FARR Act.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court could overturn the magistrate judge’s probable-cause finding and certification based on claimed evidentiary weaknesses, including an alleged witness recantation.
2. Whether CAT, the FARR Act, or related law permits a federal court on habeas review of an extradition certification to bar extradition due to a risk of torture abroad.
3. Whether torture-risk and other humanitarian objections to extradition are for the judiciary or for the Secretary of State after certification.

## Decision

- The court denied the habeas petition and left the extradition certification in place.
- The court held that the record contained sufficient evidence to support the magistrate judge’s probable-cause determination and that habeas review does not permit reweighing evidence or deciding credibility disputes.
- The court held that CAT-based torture-risk claims do not provide a basis for habeas relief from an extradition certification because such humanitarian determinations are committed to the Secretary of State in the extradition process.

## Legal Principles

- Habeas review of an extradition certification is limited to whether the extradition court had jurisdiction, whether the offense falls within the treaty, and whether there is any competent evidence supporting probable cause.
- In extradition proceedings, probable cause may be supported by documentary submissions, including hearsay and foreign witness statements; challenges such as recantation typically go to weight and credibility for adjudication in the requesting country.
- After a judicial certification of extraditability, the decision whether to surrender the person is an Executive function; torture-risk and other humanitarian objections are addressed to the Secretary of State rather than litigated as a judicial defense in extradition habeas.

## Conclusion

The district court upheld the magistrate judge’s certification of extraditability because the extradition record contained evidence supporting probable cause and because claims that extradition would lead to torture under CAT and the FARR Act are not grounds for habeas relief from certification, remaining for the Secretary of State to consider in deciding whether to extradite.


Hoxha v. Levi, 371 F. Supp. 2d 651 (E.D. Pa. 2005)