21-2755 Yoo v. United States UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2021 Argued: April 5, 2022 Decided: August 1, 2022 Docket No. 21-2755 HYUK KEE YOO, also known as Keith Yoo, Petitioner-Appellant, — v. — UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee, B e f o r e: CALABRESI, LYNCH, and LOHIER, Circuit Judges. Hyuk Kee Yoo appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Seibel, J.) denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus in connection with an extradition proceeding. Yoo argues that the text of the relevant extradition treaty and its legislative history indicate that whether extradition is time-barred is a question for the extradition court, which cannot issue a certificate of extraditability if extradition is so barred. We conclude that the most natural reading of the relevant extradition treaty’s text is that the issue of timeliness is a matter for the relevant executive authority to decide in its discretion, not a question for the extradition court to decide as a matter of law. We hold that the district court did not err in rejecting Yoo’s argument and denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. PAUL SHECHTMAN, Bracewell LLP, New York, NY (Rebecca Foxwell, Bracewell LLP, New York, NY; Shawn P. Naunton, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for Petitioner-Appellant. DEREK WIKSTROM , Assistant United States Attorney (Won S. Shin, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Respondent-Appellee. GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge: Hyuk Kee Yoo, also known as “Keith Yoo,” appeals from a November 1, 2021 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cathy Seibel, J.), denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A magistrate judge (Judith C. McCarthy, M.J.) certified Yoo as extraditable to South Korea pursuant to an extradition treaty between that country and the United States. Yoo filed the habeas petition in the district court in an attempt to avoid 2 extradition from the United States to South Korea to face seven charges of embezzlement related to his role in his family’s business empire. Both the magistrate judge and the district court held that whether the treaty’s “Lapse of Time” provision bars extradition is a question for the Secretary of State to consider in deciding whether to extradite an individual, and not a mandatory determination for the extradition court to make in the first instance. Yoo argues that the district court erred in interpreting the treaty, and that the text of the treaty and its legislative history indicate that the federal courts must decide whether the statute of limitations bars extradition before issuing a certificate of extraditability. Yoo proceeds to argue that the statute of limitations has already lapsed and that his extradition should be barred on that ground. Because the text …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals