Extradition Defense Attorneys Miami | Latin America

Overview

Extradition from the United States to Latin American countries (or of Latin American nationals held in the United States) involves a specialized framework at the intersection of federal criminal law, international treaties, and constitutional rights. Each country's extradition treaty with the United States specifies the covered offenses, the burden of proof, and the defenses available to the person sought.

Extradition defense requires fluency in both U.S. federal procedure and the legal system of the requesting country. A person cannot meaningfully challenge whether the charged offense is extraditable under a treaty without understanding how the offense is defined and prosecuted in the requesting jurisdiction. A Uruguayan fraud charge or a Brazilian corruption allegation has to be analyzed under both the treaty and the relevant foreign law.

The firm's Latin America practice, with Daniel Fridman conducting proceedings in Spanish and Portuguese and Michael Garcia fluent in Spanish, allows us to engage with the requesting jurisdiction's legal materials directly. We maintain relationships with leading criminal defense counsel in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, and other countries, enabling coordinated strategy across both the U.S. extradition proceeding and any parallel proceedings in the requesting country.

Our Approach

Extradition defense strategy begins with a treaty analysis: is the charged offense extraditable, what quantum of evidence does the treaty require, and what categorical defenses (political offense exception, dual criminality, statute of limitations) apply? These questions must be answered before a bail hearing and before any argument on the merits.

Bail in extradition proceedings is governed by a distinct legal framework from ordinary pretrial detention. The standard is not the same as for domestic criminal defendants, and the arguments for release require tailored advocacy based on the specific treaty and the client's circumstances.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the dual criminality requirement in extradition?

Dual criminality requires that the offense for which extradition is sought be a crime in both the requesting and the requested country. If the conduct is not a crime under U.S. law, or if the U.S. and the requesting country define the offense differently, dual criminality may not be satisfied and extradition can be challenged. The analysis requires examining both the treaty language and the specific facts alleged.

What is provisional arrest in an extradition proceeding?

A provisional arrest is an emergency arrest made at the request of a foreign government before the formal extradition documents are received. Most U.S. extradition treaties allow provisional arrest while the formal request is prepared. The arrested person is entitled to a bail hearing under the treaty's applicable standard and must challenge the arrest quickly to avoid prolonged detention before formal extradition documents arrive.

My client has an INTERPOL Red Notice. Does a Red Notice require extradition and how can it be challenged?

A Red Notice is not a warrant, an arrest order, or an extradition treaty obligation. It is a request from a member country to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition. It creates practical consequences (border crossing risk, banking difficulties, travel restrictions) but does not, by itself, legally compel extradition from any country. Whether a person subject to a Red Notice will actually be arrested and extradited depends on the extradition treaty between the country where the person is found and the requesting state, the dual criminality of the charged offense, and the political relationship between the countries. Challenging a Red Notice requires a request to INTERPOL's Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF). The CCF reviews whether the Notice complies with INTERPOL's Constitution and Rules, including whether it was issued for predominantly political, military, religious, or racial purposes, which would violate INTERPOL's neutrality principles. Successful CCF challenges have resulted in deletion of Notices issued by governments using INTERPOL processes for political persecution. The firm maintains relationships with CCF counsel experienced in challenging abusive Red Notices.