The U.S. Supreme Court on May 19 temporarily blocked extradition proceedings against Indian citizen Monika Kapoor aimed at returning her to her home country where fraud charges are pending.
Extradition is the process under which a person is transferred by one country to another to face prosecution, or to begin serving a sentence after being convicted of a crime.
Sotomayor’s order, called an administrative stay, gives the justices more time to consider Kapoor’s request to formally block the 2nd Circuit order. Sotomayor did not provide reasons for her decision.
Kapoor entered the United States in 1999 and remained after her visa expired. In March 2010, the federal government placed her in immigration removal proceedings. She filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the U.N. Convention Against Torture, according to the 2nd Circuit decision.
In April 2010, a court in India issued a warrant for her arrest, alleging she committed five fraud-related violations of the Indian Penal Code. Kapoor and her two brothers allegedly forged documents for jewelry transactions and used them to secure licenses from the Indian government to import materials into that country duty free, resulting in the Indian government losing about $679,000, the 2nd Circuit said.
In her application to the Supreme Court, Kapoor said she “fled India with her two young children in 1999 to escape abuse and torture at the hands of politicians who had targeted her family.” Her brothers had launched a jewelry import-export company years before, and when it became successful, “it became the target of extortive demands by authorities,” she said. When those demands were not complied with, Kapoor said government agents forced their way into her home, and held her for long periods of time in isolation while screaming at and verbally abusing her, without letting her have access to water, food, or toilet facilities.
The agents allegedly threatened her with physical and sexual harm, and said they were going to kidnap her children. Her husband was also allegedly detained by authorities and experienced abuse. “To escape the torment, and because she feared for her life and the lives of her children, she came to the U.S., where she ultimately overstayed her visa,” the application said.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York found Kapoor was eligible to be extradited to India under a treaty signed by the United States and India. The U.S. secretary of state filed a warrant allowing the extradition to proceed after rejecting Kapoor’s claim that the extradition would allegedly violate the Convention because she claimed she would likely face torture if sent back to India, according to the 2nd Circuit.
Kapoor then filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the secretary’s ruling that extradition should proceed. Habeas corpus, which is Latin for “you should have the body,” refers to the right of individuals to appear in front of a judge to contest their confinement.
In the petition, Kapoor again raised her Convention argument, which U.S. District Judge Frederic Block rejected, finding the court lacked jurisdiction, or authority, to hear the case, the circuit court said.
The 2nd Circuit affirmed, finding that the Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling in INS v. St. Cyr determined that federal law “unambiguously bars federal courts from exercising habeas jurisdiction to review [Convention] claims in extradition cases.” Under a longstanding rule, “those like Kapoor facing extradition have never been able to obtain habeas relief based on their anticipated treatment in a receiving country, which is at the heart of a [Convention] claim.”
In Kapoor’s application to the Supreme Court filed on May 15, she urged the Supreme Court to pause the 2nd Circuit order. She also indicated she intends to file a petition for certiorari, or review, with the Supreme Court.
Federal courts of appeals disagree over federal courts’ jurisdiction regarding claims made under the Convention by individuals facing extradition abroad, she said in the application. The 2nd Circuit found that Congress has taken away federal courts’ habeas jurisdiction in Convention claims, which the circuit court acknowledged was different from the approach adopted by the 9th Circuit.
Kapoor said in the document that she has a credible fear of torture if sent back to India and that her Convention claim “has never been given a fair shake.” If the 2nd Circuit order is not stayed, she will “almost certainly be extradited” and lose the opportunity to argue her case.
Sotomayor directed the lead respondent, Vincent F. DeMarco, who is identified in court papers as U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of New York, to respond to Kapoor’s application by 4 p.m. on May 27.
