## Facts

- Fawaz Yunis, a Lebanese citizen and nonresident alien, was charged for alleged involvement in the 1985 hijacking of a Royal Jordanian civilian aircraft, Flight 402.
- The indictment alleged the hijackers seized the aircraft in Beirut, forced it to fly to multiple Mediterranean locations, returned to Beirut, and destroyed the plane before escaping.
- The aircraft never entered U.S. airspace and had no contact with U.S. territory.
- Three U.S. citizens were passengers and alleged hostages during the incident.
- Yunis was apprehended in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea and brought to the United States.
- A superseding indictment added counts relying on statutes addressing offenses involving foreign-registered aircraft and harm to aircraft personnel.
- Yunis moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, arguing international law and the charged statutes did not allow prosecution for wholly foreign conduct with no U.S. territorial link.

## Issues

1. Whether international law permits U.S. criminal jurisdiction over a nonresident alien for hijacking/hostage-taking abroad when the only U.S. nexus is U.S. nationals among the victims.
2. Whether Congress intended the Hostage Taking Act (18 U.S.C. § 1203) and the Destruction of Aircraft Act (18 U.S.C. § 32(a), (b)) to apply to the charged conduct occurring entirely outside U.S. territory.
3. Whether Yunis’s physical presence in the United States after capture in international waters satisfies statutory and treaty-based “found in” requirements and supports personal jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.
- Counts charged under 18 U.S.C. § 32(a) were dismissed because that subsection was construed not to reach a wholly foreign aircraft piracy event lacking a U.S. territorial connection.
- The court sustained subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over counts under the Hostage Taking Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1203, and under 18 U.S.C. § 32(b) (and related treaty-implementing aviation provisions).
- The court rejected the argument that Yunis was not “found” in the United States, concluding that physical presence in U.S. territory sufficed regardless of the manner of capture.

## Legal Principles

- International law may permit extraterritorial prescriptive jurisdiction over certain offenses condemned by international conventions under a universal-jurisdiction rationale.
- International law may also permit jurisdiction over offenses committed abroad against a state’s nationals under the passive personality principle.
- Courts distinguish between (a) international law limits on Congress’s power to legislate extraterritorially and (b) domestic statutory intent to extend a statute to extraterritorial conduct.
- The Hostage Taking Act applies when the person seized or detained is a U.S. national, supporting extraterritorial application where that condition is met.
- 18 U.S.C. § 32(a) was construed as not extending to purely foreign conduct lacking a U.S. territorial nexus, while § 32(b) was construed to reach certain conduct involving foreign-registered aircraft consistent with treaty-implementing purposes.
- For treaty-implementing crimes requiring prosecution or extradition when an offender is “found” in a state’s territory, physical presence in the forum state is sufficient to proceed with prosecution.

## Conclusion

The court held that the United States could prosecute a foreign national for hostage-taking and specified aircraft offenses arising from a wholly foreign hijacking because international law and treaty-implementing statutes supported jurisdiction where U.S. nationals were victims and the defendant was present in the United States, but it dismissed charges brought solely under 18 U.S.C. § 32(a) due to lack of statutory reach without a U.S. territorial connection.


United States v. Yunis, 681 F. Supp. 896 (D.D.C. 1988)