## Facts

- Hong Kong authorities accused Lui Kin-Hong, a senior executive at a tobacco company, of accepting bribes exceeding HK$100 million in exchange for favorable export arrangements.
- Related allegations included violence against a potential cooperating witness, though Lui was sought on bribery charges.
- After Hong Kong sought to question Lui in 1994, he left Hong Kong on business and did not return.
- Acting on a United Kingdom request on behalf of Hong Kong under the U.S.–U.K. extradition framework, U.S. officials arrested Lui at Boston Logan Airport on December 20, 1995.
- Hong Kong was scheduled to transfer from U.K. sovereignty to the People’s Republic of China on July 1, 1997.
- Lui did not claim the political offense exception or persecution based on protected grounds; he argued extradition would effectively subject him to trial or punishment under a different sovereign after the transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether the U.S.–U.K. extradition treaties permit extradition to Hong Kong despite an imminent transfer of sovereignty that could affect who ultimately tries or punishes the fugitive.
2. Whether courts may deny extradition certification based on forecasts about a future change in the receiving territory’s sovereign or legal system, as opposed to leaving those concerns to the Executive.
3. Whether due process requires courts to bar extradition in these circumstances even when treaty and statutory requirements for certification are satisfied.

## Decision

- The First Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of habeas relief and reinstated the magistrate judge’s extradition certification.
- The court held the request fell within the treaties’ literal terms and courts may not add an implied condition that the receiving territory’s sovereignty remain unchanged through trial and punishment.
- The court ruled that predictive foreign-policy and post-surrender treatment concerns are for the Secretary of State’s discretionary surrender decision, not for courts to resolve by withholding certification.

## Legal Principles

- Extradition courts have a limited role: they determine whether the treaty and statutory prerequisites for certification are met and whether the proceedings satisfy due process.
- Courts interpret extradition treaties primarily by their text and will not infer unwritten exceptions based on geopolitical developments known to the political branches when the treaty was adopted.
- Concerns about a requesting jurisdiction’s future conditions or sovereignty changes generally fall within the Executive’s responsibility in deciding whether to surrender a certified fugitive.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that Hong Kong’s impending transfer of sovereignty did not authorize courts to deny extradition certification where the treaties’ requirements were met; any decision to refuse surrender based on anticipated post-transfer risks belonged to the Secretary of State.


United States v. Kin-Hong, 110 F.3d 103 (1st Cir. 1997)