Alejandro Toledo Manrique served as President of Peru from 1990 to 2000. While his initial terms in office were marked by positive economic and social accomplishments, he lost his bid for re-election, then moved to the United States, where he became a fellow at Stanford University, among other prestigious positions. In 2018, Peru charged him with accepting millions of dollars in bribes, collusion and money laundering and asked the United States to extradite him to face the charges. He moved to stay his extradition proceedings, but the district court denied his motion. He appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that the U.S. should comply with Peru’s valid extradition order.

A unanimous three-justice order, which denied Manrique’s motion to stay extradition, was issued by Ninth Circuit Justices Michelle T. Friedland and Ryan D. Nelson, and United States District Judge Kathleen Cardone, of the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation on April 5. The Court’s opinion affirmed the ruling of Judge Thomas Hixton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

After Peru asked the U.S. to extradite petitioner/appellant Manrique, the accused ex-President moved to stay the request until his habeas corpus motion was resolved. This motion, which is characterized as a “writ of inquiry” by Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute, asks the court to “test the validity” of the court’s reasons for restraint and detention. The Ninth Circuit explained that the extradition order could only be stayed if there was a “likelihood of success” for a habeas petition. They did not believe this would occur.

Peru had followed proper procedures when it requested Manrique’s extradition. The country had filed the necessary documents that detailed the alleged crimes and their evidence, and received approval from Peru’s highest court. U.S. legal procedures require U.S. Attorneys to file criminal complaints against extradition subjects. Magistrate judges must then certify the complaints and forward them to the Department of State, where the Secretary of State makes the final decision.

Manrique filed a writ of habeas corpus, which is the only permissible avenue for challenging extradition orders. The District Court for the Northern District of California denied the writ. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State had also approved the extradition, while it asked that he be denied bail and returned to custody. The extradition court would not deny bail or return Manrique to custody until the Ninth Circuit ruled on his motion to deny extradition.

The Ninth Circuit opinion outlined four factors it would use to stay an extradition order. These are (1) the likelihood of success, (2) whether the applicant would be “irreparably injured” without a stay, (3) whether the stay would injure other interested parties, and (4) the public interest. The court also noted that Manrique would bear the burden of showing a stay should be given.

Each factor was then discussed. First, the court admitted that irreparable injury was obvious. If extradited, Manrique’s appeal would be moot, and he argued that extradition could put his life at risk, given his age and health status. While this factor is important, it was the only factor the petitioner met. The opinion said there was a “sliding scale,” and “even with a high degree of irreparable injury, the movant must show serious legal questions going to the merits.” Manrique tried to argue that the documents that Peru provided were “insufficient” to prove a “chargeable offense.”

The court then explained how it had to interpret Peru’s supporting legal documents to determine the sufficiency of its charges. It concluded that the documents met all the requirements of the United States-Peru Treaty. Peru had provided the documentation that was necessary to support its extradition request. Several other countries, with similar supporting materials, were cited to justify its conclusion.

The Circuit Court also explained that its “rules of interpretation militate against reading” additional charges that are not mandated by a treaty. Also, the opinion cited a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court case that said treaties are “entitled to great weight.” Manrique also failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success in his argument about faulty or insufficient documents.

The petitioner/appellant again failed to prevail in his attempts to prove a lack of probable cause for extradition. The court’s standard for this decision was “whether there was any evidence warranting the

finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty.” Competent evidence to establish grounds was needed to meet this standard, rather than sufficient evidence to convict. Several self-incriminating testimonies by Manrique’s accomplices provided this degree of evidence. The petitioner also had admitted to transferring nearly $20 million of bribe-money funds into accounts held by his former associates and his mother-in-law. Three factors failed to meet the required standards.

The final factor was whether the public interest would be furthered by denial of extradition. The court found this simple to determine, stating, “Proper compliance promotes relations between the two countries, and enhances efforts to establish an international rule of law and order.”

Manrique’s failure to prevail or delay in his quest to block extradition signals a return to Peru to face the charges against him. He might soon not be the only ex-President in a similar predicament.