## Facts

- Mexican authorities in the State of Jalisco suspected Jesús Guardado Figueroa of arranging for a man to be killed in Mexico and obtained a Mexican arrest warrant.
- Mexico submitted an extradition request to the United States under the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico.
- The United States filed a complaint seeking Figueroa’s extradition under 18 U.S.C. § 3184, and the federal court issued a warrant for his arrest.
- Figueroa was arrested in the United States and was represented by counsel during the extradition proceedings.
- Mexico’s evidentiary submission included authenticated documents, including sworn statements from two of Figueroa’s employees.
- The employees stated, in substance, that they saw Figueroa hire gunmen to kill the victim, provide the victim’s location to the gunmen, and later threaten the employees to remain silent.
- The employees’ descriptions of the gunmen and related details were described as consistent with witness descriptions associated with the murder scene.
- Figueroa submitted materials and argument attacking the employees’ credibility and the reliability of their accounts (including claimed bias and inconsistencies).
- The proceeding concerned only whether Figueroa should be certified as extraditable and committed for possible surrender; it did not decide guilt or innocence.

## Issues

1. Whether the court could certify extradition under 18 U.S.C. § 3184 by finding the required elements: jurisdiction over the proceeding and the fugitive, identity, a treaty in force, treaty coverage (including dual criminality), and competent evidence establishing probable cause.
2. Whether Mexico’s authenticated documentary evidence—particularly the employees’ sworn statements—constituted competent legal evidence supporting probable cause to believe Figueroa committed the charged offense.
3. Whether Figueroa’s credibility-based challenges and competing evidence could defeat probable cause at an extradition hearing.

## Decision

- The court granted the extradition request and certified Figueroa as extraditable to Mexico.
- The court found the statutory and treaty requirements satisfied, including that the United States–Mexico extradition treaty was in force and the charged conduct was extraditable (and satisfied dual criminality).
- The court found probable cause based on Mexico’s authenticated submissions, including sworn employee statements that were supported by similarities to other witness descriptions.
- The court rejected attempts to litigate credibility disputes as if the hearing were a criminal trial, concluding that such matters were for the requesting country’s courts.
- The court ordered Figueroa committed to await the Secretary of State’s surrender decision and transmitted the certification for executive action.

## Legal Principles

- An extradition court’s task under 18 U.S.C. § 3184 is limited to determining extraditability: whether the treaty and statutory conditions are met and whether probable cause supports the charged offense; the court does not decide guilt.
- Certification generally requires findings that: (1) the judicial officer has authority to conduct the proceeding, (2) the court has personal jurisdiction over the fugitive, (3) the fugitive is the person sought, (4) a valid treaty is in force, (5) the offense is extraditable under the treaty (including dual criminality), and (6) there is competent legal evidence establishing probable cause.
- In extradition, the requesting country may rely on authenticated documentary evidence (including sworn statements) rather than live testimony; such materials may be admitted and considered when properly certified.
- The probable-cause standard in extradition resembles the standard for holding a defendant to answer; it does not require proof sufficient to convict.
- The fugitive’s evidence is limited: courts generally allow explanatory evidence that can negate probable cause, but they do not conduct a full weighing of competing proof or broad impeachment of witnesses.
- The rule of non-inquiry limits judicial review of the requesting country’s justice system and related fairness concerns; those considerations are generally reserved to the Secretary of State.

## Conclusion

In *In re Extradition of Figueroa*, the court concluded that the United States–Mexico extradition treaty applied, that the charged homicide-related conduct was extraditable and satisfied dual criminality, and that Mexico’s authenticated evidence—especially sworn statements from two employees describing Figueroa’s alleged hiring of gunmen and later threats—established probable cause; the court therefore certified Figueroa’s extradition and committed him pending the Secretary of State’s decision on surrender.


In re Extradition of Figueroa, 2013 WL 3243096 (2013)