22 U.S.C. § 254a

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this Act—(1) the term “members of a mission” means—(A) the head of a mission and those members of a mission who are members of the diplomatic staff or who, pursuant to law, are granted equivalent privileges and immunities,(B) members of the administrative and technical staff of a mission, and(C) members of the service staff of a mission,as such terms are defined in Article 1 of the Vienna Convention;(2) the term “family” means—(A) the members of the family of a member of a mission described in paragraph (1)(A) who form part of his or her household if they are not nationals of the United States, and(B) the members of the family of a member of a mission described in paragraph (1)(B) who form part of his or her household if they are not nationals or permanent residents of the United States,within the meaning of Article 37 of the Vienna Convention;(3) the term “mission” includes missions within the meaning of the Vienna Convention and any missions representing foreign governments, individually or collectively, which are extended the same privileges and immunities, pursuant to law, as are enjoyed by missions under the Vienna Convention; and(4) the term “Vienna Convention” means the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961 (T.I.A.S. numbered 7502; 23 U.S.T. 3227), entered into force with respect to the United States on December 13, 1972.(Pub. L. 95–393, § 2, Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 97–241, title II, § 203(b)(1), Aug. 24, 1982, 96 Stat. 290.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This Act, referred to in text, means Pub. L. 95–393, Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 808, known as the Diplomatic Relations Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note below and Tables.

Amendments

1982—Par. (1)(A). Pub. L. 97–241 substituted “those members of a mission who are members of the diplomatic staff or who, pursuant to law, are granted equivalent privileges and immunities” for “members of the diplomatic staff of a mission”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–241 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 204 of Pub. L. 97–241, set out as an Effective Date note under section 4301 of this title.

Effective Date

Pub. L. 95–393, § 9, Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 810, provided that: “This Act [see Short Title note below] shall take effect at the end of the ninety-day period beginning on the date of its enactment [Sept. 30, 1978]”.

Short Title

Pub. L. 95–393, § 1, Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 808, provided that: “This Act [enacting this section, sections 254b to 254e of this title, and section 1364 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, amending sections 1251 and 1351 of Title 28, repealing sections 252 to 254 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as a note under this section] may be cited as the ‘Diplomatic Relations Act’.”

Notification of Travel by Accredited Diplomatic and Consular Personnel of the Russian Federation in the United States

Pub. L. 116–92, div. E, title LXVII, § 6704, Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 2223, provided that: “In carrying out the advance notification requirements set out in section 502 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division N of Public Law 115–31; 131 Stat. 825; 22 U.S.C. 254a note), the Secretary of State shall—“(1) ensure that the Russian Federation provides notification to the Secretary of State at least 2 business days in advance of all travel that is subject to such requirements by accredited diplomatic and consular personnel of the Russian Federation in the United States, and take necessary action to secure full compliance by Russian personnel and address any noncompliance; and“(2) provide notice of travel described in paragraph (1) to the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation within 1 hour of receiving notice of such travel.”

Pub. L. 115–31, div. N, title V, § 502, May 5, 2017, 131 Stat. 825, as amended by Pub. L. 116–92, div. E, title LXVII, § 6717, Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 2228, provided that:“(a)Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.—In this section, the term ‘appropriate committees of Congress’ means—“(1) the congressional intelligence committees [Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives];“(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and“(3) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.“(b)Advance Notification Requirement.—The Secretary of State shall, in coordination with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Director of National Intelligence, establish a mandatory advance notification regime governing all travel by accredited diplomatic and consular personnel of the Russian Federation in the United States and take necessary action to secure full compliance by Russian personnel and address any noncompliance.“(c)Interagency Cooperation.—The Secretary of State, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of National Intelligence shall develop written mechanisms to share information—“(1) on travel by accredited diplomatic and consular personnel of the Russian Federation who are in the United States; and“(2) on any known or suspected noncompliance by such personnel with the regime required by subsection (b).“(d)Quarterly Reports.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [May 5, 2017], and quarterly thereafter, and consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods—“(1) the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a written report detailing the number of notifications submitted under the regime required by subsection (b); and“(2) the Secretary of State and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall jointly submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a written report detailing a best estimate of known or suspected violations of such requirements by any accredited diplomatic and consular personnel of the Russian Federation.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2022 · leading case: Broidy Capital v. Benomar, 944 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Broidy Capital v. Benomar, 944 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2019). “808 (1978) (codified at 22 U.S.C. §§ 254a‐e, 28 U.S.C. § 1364 ). The DRA makes clear that a district court must dismiss “[a]ny action or proceeding brought against an individual who is entitled to immunity with respect to such action or proceeding 10 under the Vienna Convention.”

United States v. Ibrahim Ahmed Al-Hamdi, United States of Am. v. Ibrahim Ahmed Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564 (4th Cir. 2004). “” 22 U.S.C.A. § 254a(2)(A) (West 1990). That Act also provides, quite clearly, that “[a]ny action or proceeding brought against an individual who is entitled to immunity with respect to such action or proceeding .”

Tachiona Ex Rel. Tachiona v. Mugabe, 186 F. Supp. 2d 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “1; see also Diplomatic Relations Act, 22 U.S.C. § 254a(l). While the Vienna Convention goes into precise detail as to the categories of diplomatic personnel eligible to receive varying degrees of immunity, nowhere in the text is there any mention of heads of state or foreign…”

Slater v. Biehl, 793 A.2d 1268 (D.C. 2002). “§ 1351 , provides that The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all civil actions and proceedings against— (1) consuls or vice consuls of foreign states; or (2) members of a mission or members of their families (as such…”

Diallo v. State, 994 A.2d 820 (Md. 2010). “§§ 288-2881 , 8 and the Diplomatic Relations Act, 22 U.S.C. § 254a. The State retorts that he failed to establish before the trial court that his father enjoyed diplomatic immunity on the date(s) in question, and, thus, Diallo enjoyed nothing derivatively.”

Tikhonova v. Ford Motor Co., 830 N.E.2d 1127 (NY 2005). “Under the Diplomatic Relations Act (22 USC § 254a et seq.) an action against an individual entitled to immunity must be dismissed where immunity is established “upon motion or suggestion by or on behalf of the individual” (22 USC § 254d).”

Tachiona v. Mugabe, 169 F. Supp. 2d 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). “22 U.S.C. § 254a, et seq. 171 . Id. at § 254d.”

Athridge v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 184 F.R.D. 181 (D.D.C. 1998). “But even if Jorge is a covered person in the statute, as it appears he may be, 22 U.S.C. § 254a(l)(C), the effect of the statutory requirement is a legal issue and is, therefore, an appropriate subject for plaintiffs’ own legal research, not for discovery from Aetna.”

Pitt-Bey v. Dist. of Columbia, 942 A.2d 1132 (D.C. 2008). “” 22 U.S.C. § 254a (1)(A)-(C) (2004). Appellant has not produced any evidence demonstrating he is diplomatic staff or a member of a qualified mission.”

Tran Ex Rel. Est. of Le v. Carr, 708 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 2× “22 U.S.C. § 254a(3), the provision of the Diplomatic Relations Act referenced in 28 U.”

Green v. First Liberty Ins. Corp., 321 F. Supp. 3d 368 (E.D.N.Y 2018). · cites it 2× “See 22 U.S.C. § 254a(1)(A). Furthermore, Plaintiff's allegation that Suazo worked for the mission (Compl.”

MHM Sponsors Co. v. Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations, 672 F. Supp. 752 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). “22 U.S.C § 254a. 7 . See Lacks v. Fahmi, 623 F.”

Show all 23 citing cases →

— 22 U.S.C. § 254a(1)(A) — 1 case

Green v. First Liberty Ins. Corp., 321 F. Supp. 3d 368 (E.D.N.Y 2018). “See 22 U.S.C. § 254a(1)(A). Furthermore, Plaintiff's allegation that Suazo worked for the mission (Compl.”

— 22 U.S.C. § 254a(1)(B) — 1 case

Phillips v. Oosterbaan (D. Utah 2020).

— 22 U.S.C. § 254a(2)(A) — 2 cases

United States v. Al-Hamdi (4th Cir. 2004).

— 22 U.S.C. § 254a(3) — 3 cases

Tran Ex Rel. Est. of Le v. Carr, 708 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010). “22 U.S.C. § 254a(3), the provision of the Diplomatic Relations Act referenced in 28 U.”

Tran v. Carr (D.D.C. 2010).

Miango v. Democratic Repub. of Congo (D.D.C. 2020).

— 22 U.S.C. § 254a(l) — 1 case

— 22 U.S.C. § 254a(l)(A) — 1 case

Green v. First Liberty Ins. Corp., 321 F. Supp. 3d 368 (E.D.N.Y 2018). “See 22 U.S.C. § 254a(1)(A). Furthermore, Plaintiff's allegation that Suazo worked for the mission (Compl.”

— 22 U.S.C. § 254a(l)(C) — 2 cases

Abdulaziz v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 741 F.2d 1328 (11th Cir. 1984).

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.