C.F.R. » Title 22 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF STATE › SUBCHAPTER J—LEGAL AND RELATED SERVICES › PART 95—IMPLEMENTATION OF TORTURE CONVENTION IN EXTRADITION CASES

22 C.F.R. § 95.4

Review and construction

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Decisions of the Secretary concerning surrender of fugitives for extradition are matters of executive discretion not subject to judicial review. Furthermore, pursuant to section 2242(d) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, P.L. 105-277, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to review these regulations, and nothing in section 2242 shall be construed as providing any court jurisdiction to consider or review claims raised under the Convention or section 2242, or any other determination made with respect to the application of the policy set forth in section 2242(a), except as part of the review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252), which is not applicable to extradition proceedings.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Hedelito Garcia v. Linda Thomas, 683 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hedelito Garcia v. Linda Thomas, 683 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “”4 22 C.F.R. § 95.4 . But the parties, the Supreme Court, and the courts of appeals have all taken the view that the FARR Act implements CAT by incorporating 4 I note that, with the exception of Judge Kozinski, the entire en banc panel agrees that we have jurisdiction, and that…”
Ramiro Cornejo-Barreto, AKA Rabbit, AKA Cornhole v. W.H. Seifert, Warden, 218 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “” 22 C.F.R. § 95.4 . We disagree. As we demonstrate below, the underlying statute, as well as the background rules of administrative law and habeas jurisdiction, require the opposite conclusion.”
Juarez-Saldana v. United States, 700 F. Supp. 2d 953 (W.D. Tenn. 2010). · cites it 7× “22 C.F.R. § 95.4 , titled “Review and Construction,” states: Decisions of the Secretary concerning surrender of fugitives are matters of executive discretion not subject to judicial review.”
Ramiro Cornejo-Barreto v. W.H. Siefert, Warden of the Metro. Det. Ctr., 379 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2004). “” 22 C.F.R. § 95.4 . While § 2242(d) plainly contemplates judicial review of final orders of removal for compliance with the Torture Convention and the FARR Act, it just as plainly does not contemplate judicial review for anything else.”
Kapoor v. DeMarco, 132 F.4th 595 (2d Cir. 2025). “22 C.F.R. § 95.4 . Whether an extraditee could nonetheless bring a CAT claim under FARRA pursuant to its policy statement or directive to the Secretary, absent the bar currently in place under Section 1252(a)(4), is a question we do not address here.”
Mironescu v. Costner, 480 F.3d 664 (4th Cir. 2007). “” 22 C.F.R. § 95.4 (2006). B. Having briefly described the legal landscape in which this appeal arises, we now turn to the facts.”
Prasoprat v. Benov, 622 F. Supp. 2d 980 (C.D. Cal. 2009). “, appropriate policy and legal offices review and analyze information relevant to the case in preparing a recommendation to the Secretary as to whether or not to sign the surrender warrant" and, "[b]ased on the resulting analysis of relevant information, the Secretary may decide…”
Garcia v. Benov, 715 F. Supp. 2d 974 (C.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 5× “at 1012 (quoting 22 C.F.R. § 95.4 ). However, as discussed below, the Ninth Circuit concluded in Comejo-Barreto I that such particular decisions by the Secretary are subject to judicial review, based on statute, the rules of administrative law, and principles of habeas…”
Hoxha v. Levi, 371 F. Supp. 2d 651 (E.D. Pa. 2005). “22 C.F.R. § 95.4 (“Decisions of the Secretary concerning surrender of fugitives for extradition are matters of executive discretion not subject to judicial review.”
Hedelito Garcia v. Linda Thomas (9th Cir. 2012). “”4 22 C.F.R. § 95.4 . But the parties, the Supreme Court, and the courts of appeals have all taken the view that the FARR Act implements CAT by incorporating 4 I note that, with the exception of Judge Kozinski, the entire en banc panel agrees that we have jurisdiction, and that…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.