UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TAHAWWUR HUSSAIN RANA, No. 23-1827 D.C. No. Petitioner - Appellant, 2:23-cv-04223- DSF v. W.Z. JENKINS II, OPINION

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 5, 2024 Pasadena, California

Filed August 15, 2024 Before: MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and BRIDGET S. BADE, Circuit Judges, and SIDNEY A. FITZWATER, District Judge. *

Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. * The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. 2 RANA V. JENKINS

SUMMARY **

Habeas Corpus

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Tahawwur Hussain Rana’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging a magistrate judge’s certification of Rana as extraditable to India for his alleged participation in terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Under the limited scope of habeas review of an extradition order, the panel held that Rana’s alleged offense fell within the terms of the extradition treaty between the United States and India, which included a Non Bis in Idem (double jeopardy) exception to extraditability “when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which extradition is requested.” Relying on the plain text of the treaty, the State Department’s technical analysis, and persuasive case law of other circuits, the panel held that the word “offense” refers to a charged crime, rather than underlying acts, and requires an analysis of the elements of each crime. The panel concluded that a coconspirator’s plea agreement did not compel a different result. The panel held that the Non Bis in Idem exception did not apply because the Indian charges contained distinct elements from the crimes for which Rana was acquitted in the United States. The panel also held that India provided sufficient competent evidence to support the magistrate judge’s

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. RANA V. JENKINS 3

finding of probable cause that Rana committed the charged crimes.

COUNSEL John D. Cline (argued), Law Office of John D. Cline, Seattle, Washington; Jennifer L. Williams, Summa LLP, South Pasadena, California; for Petitioner-Appellant. Bram M. Alden (argued), Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Appeals Section; David R. Friedman and John J. Lulejian, Assistant United States Attorneys; E. Martin Estrada, United States Attorney; Department of Justice, Office of the United States Attorney, Los Angeles, California; Kerry A. Monaco, Trial Attorney; Rebecca A. Haciski, Associate Director; Office of International Affairs; Bruce C. Swartz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Nicole M. Argentieri, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division; United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent-Appellee.

OPINION M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a Pakistani national, was tried in a United States district court on charges related to his support for a terrorist organization that carried out large- scale terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India. A jury convicted Rana of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization and conspiring to provide material support to a foiled