Hearing on Extradition to the USA: Step-by-Step Analysis of the Federal Process

The extradition process in the USA almost always begins with an arrest. This is not a criminal detention in the classical sense but a measure aimed at ensuring the person’s appearance in court and preventing their escape before the completion of the extradition proceedings. Arrest is possible only after the involvement of federal authorities and the court, and it is strictly regulated by American legislation and international treaties.

A foreign state sends a request for the search and detention of a person to the U.S. Department of Justice. Then, a federal prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA), on behalf of this state, files an extradition complaint in federal court. Along with the complaint, they request a warrant of arrest to detain the person on U.S. territory. The judge checks whether there are formal grounds for the arrest, and if they are confirmed, signs the warrant.

The extradition procedure to the USA can begin under one of two scenarios: a temporary provisional arrest or an arrest based on a full extradition request. In the first case, detention is carried out following an urgent request, often through Interpol, when the requesting country has not yet submitted the complete set of documents. Such cases require the subsequent provision of evidence within 30–60 days; otherwise, the detainee may be released. In the second case, the request is accompanied by a full set of materials: an indictment, an arrest warrant, and evidence, after which the prosecutor applies to the federal court, and the judge immediately issues a warrant. Such an arrest has a solid legal basis and directly leads to a hearing.

The detained person is brought to a federal magistrate judge for the initial hearing, where their identity is confirmed, rights are explained, and the issue of temporary release on bail is decided. Although in most extradition cases, bail is denied, considering the high risk of flight. From this moment, the official process of extradition review in a U.S. federal court begins.

Many believe that defense begins only in court – but this is a mistake. Already at the time of arrest, it is important to challenge the legality of the warrant, demand the observance of rights, file motions for release or reduction of detention conditions, and prevent self-incrimination and confessions that may later be used against the client. The earlier a team of lawyers gets involved, the greater the chances of controlling the process.

After the arrest and initial court appearance, a key stage follows – the Extradition Hearing. This is not a criminal trial and does not address guilt on the merits. The judge does not evaluate whether the person is guilty, does not hear defense witnesses regarding the circumstances of the crime, and does not decide on punishment. Their task is to determine whether there is sufficient legal basis to transfer the individual to a foreign state. The hearing takes place before a federal judge at the level of Magistrate Judge and is strictly limited to a narrowly defined set of issues.

The court considers only four key criteria:

If the collected materials do not meet at least one of the criteria, the judge is obliged to refuse.

At this stage, the defense must operate precisely and legally competently. Our lawyers analyze the contract and applicable law, challenge evidence based on the standard of probable cause, verify the arrest procedure and admissibility of documents, prepare arguments on double jeopardy and identity identification, while simultaneously developing a strategy for addressing the State Department.

The main hearing on extradition to the USA has a strictly limited scope of consideration. At this stage, the judge does not determine whether the person is guilty or assess the fairness of the charges on their merits. Their task is only to verify the legal admissibility of extradition: whether there is an extradition treaty, whether the identity has been confirmed, whether the principle of double criminality has been observed, and whether there is sufficient evidence of probable cause.

Arguments about innocence, alibi, false testimony, unreliable witnesses, forged documents, or case fabrication do not matter. The judge does not investigate the crime, summon witnesses, or evaluate evidence because that is the task of the requesting country’s court.

Even if the defendant has a solid alibi or new evidence of innocence, the U.S. federal court will not evaluate them.

He is only interested in whether there are formal grounds to suspect a person, not actual guilt. Defense evidence is admissible only if it points to a mistake in identity or the absence of the legal elements of the crime, not to the fact that the person did not commit it.

The US court does not assess the level of democracy, the independence of courts, or detention conditions. The exception is if there is strong evidence of a risk of torture or cruel treatment. In all other cases, human rights issues are addressed by the US Secretary of State at the executive stage.

In theory, the court may consider the Political Offense Exception—an exception to extradition if the prosecution is of a political nature. However, this doctrine is complex and applied extremely rarely; U.S. courts interpret it narrowly, and any doubts are more often referred to the Secretary of State for consideration. Moreover, violent crimes (terrorist acts, murders, kidnappings) are not considered political and do not fall under the exception, even if the motive was ideological.

The legal strategy at this stage must be precise and correspond to the court’s jurisdiction. Our team helps identify legal errors in the request, challenge identity or lack of probable cause, prepare arguments for the State Department on humanitarian and political grounds, accompany the client from arrest to filing a Habeas Corpus or appealing to the Secretary of State.