U.S. Code » Title 22 » Chapter CHAPTER 7— INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS, CONGRESSES, ETC. › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER XVIII— PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

22 U.S.C. § 288d

Privileges, exemptions, and immunities of officers, employees, and their families; waiver

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Persons designated by foreign governments to serve as their representatives in or to international organizations and the officers and employees of such organizations, and members of the immediate families of such representatives, officers, and employees residing with them, other than nationals of the United States, shall, insofar as concerns laws regulating entry into and departure from the United States, alien registration and fingerprinting, and the registration of foreign agents, be entitled to the same privileges, exemptions, and immunities as are accorded under similar circumstances to officers and employees, respectively, of foreign governments, and members of their families.(b) Representatives of foreign governments in or to international organizations and officers and employees of such organizations shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling within their functions as such representatives, officers, or employees except insofar as such immunity may be waived by the foreign government or international organization concerned.(Dec. 29, 1945, ch. 652, title I, § 7(a), (b), 59 Stat. 671.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1954–2023 · leading case: United States v. Enger
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Enger (1978) njd · cites it 7× “(Emphasis added) 22 U.S.C. § 288d. (a) No person shall be entitled to the benefits of [sections 228-288Í] of this title unless he (1) shall have been duly notified to and accepted by the Secretary of State as a representative, officer, or employee; or (2) shall have been…”
United States v. Ng Lap Seng (2019) ca2 · cites it 2× “19 19 Moreover, within that framework, certain limitations and exceptions apply.”
Margot Rendall-Speranza v. Edward A. Nassim (1997) cadc “As such, the provision of the IOIA relevant to him is clearly not § 2(b) but § 7(b), 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b): “officers and employees of [international] organizations shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and…”
Brzak v. United Nations (2008) nysd · cites it 2× “” 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b). In accordance with its treaty obligations to communicate the views of the Secretary-General, see Difference Relating to *317 Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission of Human Rights, 1999 I.”
Garcia v. Sebelius (2012) dcd · cites it 2× “See 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b). The Court therefore must set aside the Clerk’s entry of default, and deny the plaintiffs’ motion for entry of a default judgment against Roses.”
Zuza v. Office of the High Representaitve (2015) dcd · cites it 3× “” 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b). Together, then, the 2010 Amendment and the Executive Order entitle OHR “officers and employees” to immunity from actions such as the one sub judice.”
Ronald Tuck v. Pan American Health Organization (1981) cadc “Acuna’s functions at PAHO Director, the provisions of 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b) (1976) protect him from suit.”
Zuza v. Office of the High Representative (2017) cadc “” 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b). Legal process is an expansive term.”
Carr L. Donald v. Alejandro Orfila (1986) cadc · cites it 2× “The generative action in the instant case — termination of Donald’s employment — unquestionably relates to Orfila’s official functions.”
Boimah v. United Nations General Assembly (1987) nyed · cites it 2× “” 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b). Section 18(a) of the Convention is even broader: “Officials of the United Nations shall: (a) be immune from legal process in respect of .”
Mary Jane Keeney v. United States (1954) cadc · cites it 2× “672 , 22 U.S.C.A. § 288d(b) : “Representatives of foreign governments in or to international organizations and officers and employees of such organizations shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling…”
Bartlett v. Baasiri (2023) ca2 “2017) (concluding that foreign official immunity under the International Organizations Immunities Act, 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b), “compels prompt dismissal even when it attaches mid-litigation”).”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— 22 U.S.C. § 288d(a) — 1 case
United States v. Enger (1978) njd “(Emphasis added) 22 U.S.C. § 288d. (a) No person shall be entitled to the benefits of [sections 228-288Í] of this title unless he (1) shall have been duly notified to and accepted by the Secretary of State as a representative, officer, or employee; or (2) shall have been…”
— 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b) — 30 cases
United States v. Ng Lap Seng (2019) ca2 “19 19 Moreover, within that framework, certain limitations and exceptions apply.”
United States v. Enger (1978) njd “(Emphasis added) 22 U.S.C. § 288d. (a) No person shall be entitled to the benefits of [sections 228-288Í] of this title unless he (1) shall have been duly notified to and accepted by the Secretary of State as a representative, officer, or employee; or (2) shall have been…”
Margot Rendall-Speranza v. Edward A. Nassim (1997) cadc “As such, the provision of the IOIA relevant to him is clearly not § 2(b) but § 7(b), 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b): “officers and employees of [international] organizations shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and…”
Brzak v. United Nations (2008) nysd “” 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b). In accordance with its treaty obligations to communicate the views of the Secretary-General, see Difference Relating to *317 Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission of Human Rights, 1999 I.”
Garcia v. Sebelius (2012) dcd “See 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b). The Court therefore must set aside the Clerk’s entry of default, and deny the plaintiffs’ motion for entry of a default judgment against Roses.”
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.