## Facts

- Peru sought extradition of Wilmer Yarleque Ordinola, a Peruvian national and former member of the Peruvian Army’s “Colina Group,” under the U.S.–Peru Extradition Treaty.
- Peru alleged that, during Peru’s internal conflict with the Shining Path insurgency, Ordinola participated in four 1991–1992 operations involving the kidnapping and killing of noncombatant civilians.
- The alleged conduct included removing victims from their homes at night, transporting them to isolated locations, executing them, and burying them in mass graves.
- Peru charged Ordinola with aggravated homicide, aggravated kidnapping, forced disappearance, intentional serious injury, and delinquent association.
- A magistrate judge conducted an extradition hearing, found probable cause, and certified Ordinola as extraditable, rejecting his claim that the treaty’s political offense exception applied.
- Ordinola sought habeas relief; the district court granted the writ, concluding the political offense exception barred extradition.
- The Government appealed the grant of habeas relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged kidnappings and killings of noncombatant civilians fell within the U.S.–Peru Extradition Treaty’s political offense exception, thereby barring extradition.
2. What level of deference a habeas court must give to the extradition court’s factual findings when reviewing a certification of extraditability.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of habeas relief and remanded with instructions to re-enter the magistrate judge’s certification of extraditability.
- The court held that the political offense exception did not apply to the alleged conduct because the acts were common crimes directed at noncombatant civilians rather than political offenses.
- The court concluded the district court improperly reweighed the evidence and failed to apply clear-error review to the magistrate judge’s factual findings regarding the civilian status of the victims and the nature of the attacks.
- A separate concurrence agreed with the judgment while expressing a different emphasis on the scope of habeas review and deference.

## Legal Principles

- Habeas review of an extradition certification is limited to whether the magistrate had jurisdiction, whether the charged offenses are extraditable, and whether there is any evidence supporting probable cause.
- In habeas review of extradition, factual findings are reviewed for clear error and legal questions are reviewed de novo.
- Political offenses are commonly divided into “pure” political offenses (e.g., treason) and “relative” political offenses (common crimes connected to a political disturbance).
- For a “relative” political offense, there must be (1) a violent political disturbance and (2) an offense incidental to and in the course of that disturbance.
- Political motivation alone does not convert a common crime into a political offense; courts apply objective factors, including the nature of the act, the identity of the targets, and proportionality to any political aim.
- Violence directed at noncombatant civilians is strong evidence the conduct is not a political offense for treaty purposes, even when occurring during an internal armed conflict.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit ruled that alleged kidnappings and killings of noncombatant civilians attributed to a military death-squad member were not protected by the treaty’s political offense exception, and it reinstated the certification permitting extradition to proceed.


Ordinola v. Hackman, 478 F.3d 588 (4th Cir. 2007)