[ad_1]
WASHINGTON: The Biden administration has urged a California court to deny the habeas corpus served by a Canadian businessman of Pakistani descent. sunrise He confirmed that he would be extradited to India where he is wanted for his involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks.
A US court agreed to extradite Rana to India in May. Rana He is currently being held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles.
“The United States respectfully requests that the court deny Rana’s petition for habeas corpus,” said E. Martin Estrada, US Attorney for the District of Central California in the petition filed in the US District Court for the District of Central California.
Estrada, who opposed Rana’s petition, said the petitioner was unable to prove that the Indian extradition request lacked sufficient evidence of probable cause.
Last month, Rana filed a writ of habeas corpus against the court order that granted the US government’s request for his extradition to India.
Rana’s lawyer said his extradition would violate the US-India extradition treaty in two ways.
First, Rana was tried and acquitted in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on charges based on the same conduct that India is seeking to prosecute. Thus, extradition is prohibited under Article 6(1) of the Treaty, which states that “(e) Extradition shall not be permitted when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the requested State of the offense for which extradition is sought.”
Secondly, the materials supplied by the Government of India—consisting primarily of transcripts and documents from Rana’s trial in the Northern District of Illinois—fail to establish probable cause for the crimes with which India charged him. Accordingly, the Indian government’s extradition request does not satisfy Article 9.3(c) of the treaty, according to Rana’s lawyer.
His lawyer argued that the court should issue a writ of habeas corpus, refusing extradition and ordering Rana’s release.
India had filed a complaint on 10 June 2020 requesting the provisional arrest of Rana with a view to his extradition. The Biden administration had supported and agreed to extradite him to India.
In his plea to court on June 23, the US Attorney General argued that Rana’s claims about the legality of his business in Mumbai had failed.
Evidence does not support his assertion that the Mumbai office conducted legitimate business, but even if it did, engaging in legitimate business activities did not preclude the discovery that Rana’s business was a cover for his Pakistani-American childhood friend David Coleman Headley. Terrorism related activities in Mumbai.
Rana’s allegations about who funded the Mumbai office also do not relate to whether Rana lacked knowledge and support for Headley’s activities. Likewise, even if Rana hoped to continue business operations in Mumbai, the evidence reveals that Rana and Headley did not renew the commercial lease that had expired. Two weeks before the start of the Mumbai attacks.
Headley was one of the main conspirators of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.
Estrada said the fact that Rana was warned before the attacks did not preclude finding a probable cause. “In the fall of 2008, when Headley learned that Rana would be traveling to China and India, he decided to warn Rana that an attack might be imminent through a co-conspirator,” he said.
While the details of the conversation between Rana and the co-conspirator are not known, an FBI interception of September 7, 2009 reveals that Rana told Headley that their co-conspirator had warned him (Rana) that the Mumbai attacks were imminent. Contrary to the Rana claim that warning the co-conspirator does not It indicates that he was not aware of the upcoming attacks.”
Instead, it merely indicates that Rana was unaware of the date of the attack, which is consistent with the fact that Headley had earlier informed Rana that plans for the attack had been delayed.
Estrada said Rana’s claim that he did not review Headley’s visa application is not supported by the evidence.
Rana does not argue that Headley’s visa applications contained false information; instead, he claims that “it is unlikely that[he]checked[the applications]for accuracy” because he would have corrected a statement indicating that Headley worked at First World Immigration instead of Immigrant Law Centre.
While the Immigration Law Center is the “DBA of Raymond J. Sanders,” Rana’s business partner, this business and “First World Immigration” share the same address and phone number. Significantly, India issued a work visa to Headley, although Although he wrote “First World Immigration” on his 2006 visa application and the accompanying letter of support from Mr. Sanders referred to the entity operating as the “Immigration Law Center”.
Thus, Rana’s claim does not undermine probable cause and is not convincing, the US attorney said.
India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) is investigating Rana’s role in the 26/11 attacks carried out by Pakistani Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists. The NIA said it was ready to initiate procedures to bring him to India through diplomatic channels.
A total of 166 people, including six Americans, were killed in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, in which 10 Pakistani terrorists laid siege for more than 60 hours, attacking and killing people in famous and vital locations in Mumbai.
A US court agreed to extradite Rana to India in May. Rana He is currently being held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles.
“The United States respectfully requests that the court deny Rana’s petition for habeas corpus,” said E. Martin Estrada, US Attorney for the District of Central California in the petition filed in the US District Court for the District of Central California.
Estrada, who opposed Rana’s petition, said the petitioner was unable to prove that the Indian extradition request lacked sufficient evidence of probable cause.
Last month, Rana filed a writ of habeas corpus against the court order that granted the US government’s request for his extradition to India.
Rana’s lawyer said his extradition would violate the US-India extradition treaty in two ways.
First, Rana was tried and acquitted in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on charges based on the same conduct that India is seeking to prosecute. Thus, extradition is prohibited under Article 6(1) of the Treaty, which states that “(e) Extradition shall not be permitted when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the requested State of the offense for which extradition is sought.”
Secondly, the materials supplied by the Government of India—consisting primarily of transcripts and documents from Rana’s trial in the Northern District of Illinois—fail to establish probable cause for the crimes with which India charged him. Accordingly, the Indian government’s extradition request does not satisfy Article 9.3(c) of the treaty, according to Rana’s lawyer.
His lawyer argued that the court should issue a writ of habeas corpus, refusing extradition and ordering Rana’s release.
India had filed a complaint on 10 June 2020 requesting the provisional arrest of Rana with a view to his extradition. The Biden administration had supported and agreed to extradite him to India.
In his plea to court on June 23, the US Attorney General argued that Rana’s claims about the legality of his business in Mumbai had failed.
Evidence does not support his assertion that the Mumbai office conducted legitimate business, but even if it did, engaging in legitimate business activities did not preclude the discovery that Rana’s business was a cover for his Pakistani-American childhood friend David Coleman Headley. Terrorism related activities in Mumbai.
Rana’s allegations about who funded the Mumbai office also do not relate to whether Rana lacked knowledge and support for Headley’s activities. Likewise, even if Rana hoped to continue business operations in Mumbai, the evidence reveals that Rana and Headley did not renew the commercial lease that had expired. Two weeks before the start of the Mumbai attacks.
Headley was one of the main conspirators of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.
Estrada said the fact that Rana was warned before the attacks did not preclude finding a probable cause. “In the fall of 2008, when Headley learned that Rana would be traveling to China and India, he decided to warn Rana that an attack might be imminent through a co-conspirator,” he said.
While the details of the conversation between Rana and the co-conspirator are not known, an FBI interception of September 7, 2009 reveals that Rana told Headley that their co-conspirator had warned him (Rana) that the Mumbai attacks were imminent. Contrary to the Rana claim that warning the co-conspirator does not It indicates that he was not aware of the upcoming attacks.”
Instead, it merely indicates that Rana was unaware of the date of the attack, which is consistent with the fact that Headley had earlier informed Rana that plans for the attack had been delayed.
Estrada said Rana’s claim that he did not review Headley’s visa application is not supported by the evidence.
Rana does not argue that Headley’s visa applications contained false information; instead, he claims that “it is unlikely that[he]checked[the applications]for accuracy” because he would have corrected a statement indicating that Headley worked at First World Immigration instead of Immigrant Law Centre.
While the Immigration Law Center is the “DBA of Raymond J. Sanders,” Rana’s business partner, this business and “First World Immigration” share the same address and phone number. Significantly, India issued a work visa to Headley, although Although he wrote “First World Immigration” on his 2006 visa application and the accompanying letter of support from Mr. Sanders referred to the entity operating as the “Immigration Law Center”.
Thus, Rana’s claim does not undermine probable cause and is not convincing, the US attorney said.
India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) is investigating Rana’s role in the 26/11 attacks carried out by Pakistani Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists. The NIA said it was ready to initiate procedures to bring him to India through diplomatic channels.
A total of 166 people, including six Americans, were killed in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, in which 10 Pakistani terrorists laid siege for more than 60 hours, attacking and killing people in famous and vital locations in Mumbai.
[ad_2]
