Vitkus v. Blinken
| Docket Number | 22-6901 |
| Decision Date | 24 August 2023 |
| Parties | DARIUS VITKUS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ANTONY BLINKEN, Secretary of State; MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General; NICK PROFFITT, U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia; SEAN CASEY, Warden William G Truesdale Adult Detention Center, Respondents - Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Fairuze Sofia, THE SOFIA LAW FIRM, PA, Fort Lauderdale Florida, for Appellant.
Rebecca Haciski, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
ON BRIEF:
Kenneth A. Polite, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Bruce C. Swartz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Christopher S. Strauss, Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Elizabeth A. Spavins, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
In this interlocutory appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia, petitioner Darius Vitkus - a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania - challenges the district court's denial of his request for a preliminary injunction. See Vitkus v. Blinken, No. 1:22-cv-00845 (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2022), ECF No. 13 (the "Injunction Denial"). By these proceedings, Vitkus seeks - in connection with his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 - to prevent the defendant government officials from carrying out his extradition to Lithuania.[1]
The district court denied Vitkus's request for injunctive relief, deeming him unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claim that his extradition to Lithuania would contravene the extradition treaty between that country and the United States. More specifically, Vitkus maintained that Lithuania's 2015 extradition request fails to comply with the treaty's mandate that Lithuania produce what is called "the charging document" (the "charging document contention"). The Injunction Denial ruled, however, that the documents produced by Lithuania comply with the extradition treaty, and that Vitkus is therefore not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.
As explained herein, we are satisfied that Vitkus is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that Lithuania's 2015 extradition request does not satisfy the charging document mandate of the extradition treaty. Consistent with the foregoing, and because Vitkus is otherwise entitled to injunctive relief, we reverse the Injunction Denial and remand.
For background and context, we begin our recitation of facts by describing the extradition treaty and Vitkus's suspected criminal conduct - that is, his putative extraditable conduct that underlies Lithuania's extradition request. We then review the extradition proceedings and related judicial proceedings heretofore conducted in the Southern District of Florida and the Eastern District of Virginia.[2]
In 2001, the United States of America entered into an extradition treaty with the Republic of Lithuania. See Lith. - U.S., Oct. 23, 2001, S. Treaty Doc. No. 107-4 (2002) (the "Treaty"). The Treaty provides for the extradition - at the request of either signatory - of "persons whom the authorities in the Requesting State have charged with . . . an extraditable offense." Id. art. 1. The Treaty identifies, inter alia, the offenses for which such a person may be extradited, the time frames within which an extradition request must be made, and the pertinent procedures for making such a request.
See Treaty art. 8 § 3 (emphasis added). Although each of the foregoing requirements must be satisfied to fully support a request for extradition, the controlling issue with respect to the Injunction Denial is whether Lithuania's extradition request complied with Article 8 § 3(b)'s requirement that it include "a copy of the charging document," which we call the "charging document mandate."
Vitkus is a citizen of Lithuania. As a young man, he apparently supported and donated to a political party sometimes referred to as "the Russia party." See J.A. 9. In 2005, Vitkus began serving as a director of a real estate business in Lithuania called Gvidonas, GAB, which eventually fell into bankruptcy proceedings. In March 2008, the Lithuanian authorities initiated a criminal investigation into Vitkus's conduct as a director of that business (the "2008 investigation"). During the 2008 investigation, the Lithuanian authorities explored whether Vitkus had fraudulently induced another person to sell him an apartment. Id. at 126.[3]
According to Vitkus, the Lithuanian police issued a summons to him in 2009 concerning a bank loan Vitkus had obtained in 2005 but failed to repay. Instead of questioning Vitkus about the loan, however, Vitkus says that the Lithuanian police officers tied him to a chair, beat him, deprived him of water, and burned him with cigarettes. The officers further tortured Vitkus by placing a gas mask over his head, and intermittently restricting his air intake. During the torture incident, Vitkus recalls that he was questioned about his political activities. See J.A. 9.
In October 2009, the Lithuanian authorities initiated a second criminal investigation into Vitkus (the "2009 investigation"). The 2009 investigation was to examine three questions: (1) whether Vitkus had misappropriated funds from the real estate business while he was a director thereof; (2) whether Vitkus had failed to properly report his taxable income for 2008 and 2009; (3) and whether Vitkus had fraudulently sold an apartment that belonged to the real estate business. See J.A. 103.
In December 2009, Vitkus - living in Lithuania - received a document entitled "Notification of Suspicion," which informed him that he was a suspect in the 2009 investigation. See J.A. 87. The Notification of Suspicion for the 2009 investigation identified the Lithuanian code provisions that Vitkus had allegedly violated, and it summarized his suspected criminal conduct. In December 2010, Vitkus received another Notification of Suspicion, this time advising him that he was a suspect in the 2008 investigation. Id. at 121. Vitkus later received an updated Notification of Suspicion concerning the 2009 investigation, detailing additional suspected criminal conduct (his third Notification of Suspicion). Id. at 89. Soon thereafter, Vitkus departed Lithuania, arriving in the United States in late December 2010.
In 2011, two orders of arrest were issued in Lithuania for Vitkus - then living in the United States - concerning the 2008 and 2009 investigations. See J.A. 117, 132. Around that time, the Lithuanian authorities launched a third criminal investigation into Vitkus's conduct as a director of the real estate business (the "2011 investigation"). The 2011 investigation concerned whether Vitkus had forged bank documents in 2007 to purchase an apartment. The 2011 investigation also related to whether Vitkus had forged power of attorney documents to enable the purchase of a commercial building, and whether he had used that property to fraudulently obtain a 2009 bank loan. Id. at 145.
Notably, the 2011 investigation resulted in the creation of a document by a prosecutor entitled "Decision to Recognize D. Vitkus as a Suspect," which we refer to as a "Suspect Decision." See J.A. 137. Therein, the Lithuanian prosecutor supervising the 2011 investigation certified that, based on the evidence gathered, it was proper to recognize Vitkus as a suspect in that investigation. The Suspect Decision described Vitkus's suspected criminal conduct and identified the implicated provisions of the Lithuanian criminal code. Meanwhile, and also in 2011, a second Suspect Decision - detailing additional suspected illegal conduct by Vitkus in connection with the 2009 investigation - was issued. Id. at 79. Finally, in January 2012, an order of arrest was issued for Vitkus in Lithuania in connection with the 2011 investigation. Id. at 151.
In June 2012, Vitkus was placed into removal proceedings by the immigration authorities in the United States. In connection therewith, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (the "CAT"). The Board of Immigration Appeals (the "BIA") found in 2014 that Vitkus's "credible testimony established that he was beaten, burned, and nearly asphyxiated by [Lithuanian] police officers, who inquired into his contributions to a political party." See J.A. 28. Accordingly, the BIA ruled that Vitkus qualified for withholding of removal by the Attorney General, pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (the "INA").
On May 7, 2015, the Lithuanian government formally requested - pursuant to the Treaty - the extradition of Vitkus from the United States to Lithuania. In its...
To continue reading
Request your trial