## Facts

- Somali nationals sued Mohamed Ali Samantar, a former high-ranking Somali government official during the Siad Barre regime.
- Plaintiffs alleged they suffered torture and other serious human-rights abuses by Somali soldiers and government agents.
- Plaintiffs claimed the abuses were committed by forces acting under Samantar’s command authority while he served in senior government roles.
- Plaintiffs sought damages under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) and the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).
- Samantar moved to dismiss, asserting immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) because the alleged conduct was undertaken in an official capacity.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding Samantar was immune under the FSIA.

## Issues

1. Whether the FSIA applies to individual foreign officials, such that an official sued for acts taken in an official capacity is an “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” and therefore immune, depriving federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held the FSIA does not apply to natural persons and therefore does not provide Samantar immunity.
- Because the FSIA did not apply, it did not strip the district court of jurisdiction over the TVPA and ATS claims.
- The court limited its holding to statutory FSIA immunity and left open whether Samantar could assert immunity under non-FSIA doctrines on remand.

## Legal Principles

- The FSIA’s definition of “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” covers “entities” that are “separate legal person[s], corporate or otherwise,” which the statute and legislative materials indicate are juridical persons rather than natural persons.
- An individual foreign official is not a “foreign state” or an FSIA “agency or instrumentality” solely because the suit targets conduct taken in an official capacity.
- Whether an individual official may claim immunity outside the FSIA is a separate question not resolved by a holding that the FSIA does not apply.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that the FSIA’s immunity provisions do not extend to individual foreign officials, reversed the jurisdictional dismissal premised on FSIA immunity, and remanded for further proceedings on the plaintiffs’ TVPA and ATS claims and any other defenses.


Yousuf v. Samantar, 552 F.3d 371 (4th Cir. 2009)