United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

August Term 2024

Argued: May 12, 2025 Decided: June 9, 2025

No. 25-386

MARIO LALAMA GOMEZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

Respondent-Appellee,

MDC BROOKLYN WARDEN,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York No. 24-cv-7850, Carol Bagley Amon, Judge.

*While Lalama Gomez has not adhered to the requirement that he name his immediate custodian as the respondent, see Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004), we conclude that the government has waived objection to his failure to comply with this rule and thus proceed to the merits of this appeal, see Skaftouros v. United States, 667 F.3d 144, 146 n.1 (2d Cir. 2011). Before: LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, and SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.

Mario Lalama Gomez appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Amon, J.) denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus following the decision of a magistrate judge (Eshkenazi, M.J.) to certify his extradition to the Republic of Ecuador for the crime of sexual abuse. On appeal, Lalama Gomez argues that (1) sexual abuse is not an extraditable offense under the extradition treaty between the United States and Ecuador, (2) the district court should have granted habeas relief because the magistrate judge erroneously precluded Lalama Gomez from offering certain expert testimony at his certification hearing, and (3) the district court failed to consider Lalama Gomez’s humanitarian arguments, including the likelihood that Lalama Gomez would be physically harmed in prison if he were to be extradited to Ecuador, especially as an accused sex offender. We disagree.

First, we hold that extradition is permissible when the underlying conduct constitutes an extraditable offense listed in the relevant treaty, regardless of the name given to the charge in the requesting country. Because there is probable cause to believe that Lalama Gomez engaged in conduct that constitutes the extraditable offense of rape, we agree with the district court that he may be extradited to Ecuador. Second, we conclude that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in excluding Lalama Gomez’s proposed expert testimony and that the district court did not err in denying Lalama Gomez’s petition for habeas relief on these grounds. Third, we reaffirm our prior holdings that it is the exclusive duty of the Executive Branch – not the courts – to determine whether extradition should be denied based on humanitarian concerns. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

RICHARD LEVITT (Zachary Segal, on the brief), Levitt & Kaizer, New York, NY, for Petitioner-Appellant.

REBECCA URQUIOLA (Saritha Komatireddy, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for John J. Durham, United States Attorney for the Eastern

2 District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Respondent-Appellee. RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge:

Mario Lalama Gomez appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Amon, J.) denying his petition fo