## Facts

- Three U.S. citizens were arrested, convicted, and imprisoned in Mexico for narcotics offenses.
- After the U.S.–Mexico treaty on execution of penal sentences took effect, each prisoner requested transfer to the United States to serve the Mexican sentence.
- Following transfer, the prisoners were confined in federal custody at FCI Danbury pursuant to the treaty and its implementing statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 4100–4115).
- The prisoners filed federal habeas petitions seeking release, alleging extreme unfairness in the Mexican proceedings and arguing their transfer consent was coerced by harsh prison conditions in Mexico.
- A U.S. magistrate conducted post-transfer consent proceedings in which each prisoner was advised of the transfer’s nature and consequences and stated on the record that consent was voluntary.
- The district court granted habeas relief, concluding the Mexican convictions and prison conditions were so deficient that they could not support U.S. custody and that consent to transfer was involuntary.
- The government appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether federal courts have habeas jurisdiction over U.S. citizens held in federal custody in the United States under sentences imposed by a foreign sovereign pursuant to a prisoner-transfer treaty.
2. Whether, in such habeas proceedings, a federal court may invalidate or disregard the underlying foreign conviction based on broad due process objections to foreign procedures.
3. Whether consent to transfer required by the treaty and implementing statutes was involuntary because it was motivated by harsh or abusive foreign confinement, despite later consent confirmation before a U.S. magistrate.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the grant of habeas relief and remanded.
- The court reaffirmed federal habeas jurisdiction for prisoners physically held in the United States under federal authority, including custody flowing from a treaty-based transfer.
- The court held that the scope of habeas review in this setting is limited primarily to whether U.S. officials acted within treaty and statutory authority and whether required consent procedures were satisfied.
- The court rejected the district court’s approach insofar as it effectively treated habeas as a vehicle to vacate or relitigate the Mexican convictions.
- On the record presented, the court concluded the statutory/treaty consent requirements were met through the U.S. magistrate proceedings and that prior foreign mistreatment did not, by itself, render the later verified consent invalid.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may entertain habeas petitions from persons in federal custody within the United States even when custody is based on a foreign judgment executed under a prisoner-transfer treaty.
- In treaty-transfer cases, habeas review generally does not extend to broad collateral attack on the foreign conviction’s fairness; review is directed to U.S. authority to detain and compliance with treaty and implementing statutes.
- Treaty-transfer consent must be informed and voluntary as verified through required U.S. procedures; adverse foreign prison conditions may be relevant context but are not automatically dispositive when consent is later confirmed before a neutral U.S. judicial officer.
- Separation-of-powers and foreign-relations concerns counsel against transforming habeas into international appellate review of foreign criminal judgments accepted for sentence administration under a treaty.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that federal habeas jurisdiction exists for prisoners transferred to U.S. custody under the U.S.–Mexico prisoner-transfer framework, but relief is limited to ensuring lawful U.S. detention, treaty/statutory compliance, and valid consent; it reversed a district court order that effectively nullified the foreign convictions and treated prior foreign mistreatment as per se negating later consent verified in U.S. proceedings.


Rosado v. Civiletti, 621 F.2d 1179 (2d Cir. 1980)