Rana's petition to the US Supreme Court was filed in November 2024. The US Ninth Court of Appeals had denied him relief around September 2024.
The US Supreme Court dismissed his petition without a hearing.
Rana's petition to the US Supreme Court has this statement of the case.
"The jury acquitted Rana on Count 9 (conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism in India)" .STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. Rana was previously prosecuted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. United States v. Rana et al., Case No. 1:09- cr-00830 (N.D. Ill.). The second superseding indictment charged him in three counts. Count 9 charged him with conspiring to provide material support to terrorism in India. 11-ER-2340. The alleged conspiracy began “in or about late 2005” and continued “through on or about October 3, 2009.” 11- ER-2340. The centerpiece of the alleged conspiracy was the attack conducted by Lashkar e Tayyiba (“Lashkar”) on various locations in Mumbai in November 2008, resulting in the death of 164 persons. 11-ER-2335, ¶ 29. Rana's alleged co-conspirators included, among others, David Headley. Headley pleaded guilty and cooperated against Rana.
Count 9 incorporates by reference paragraphs 3 through 33 of Count 1. 11-ER-2341, ¶ 3. Those paragraphs allege conduct that mirrors the allegations in India's extradition request. Compare 2- ER-270-93 (summary of facts in extradition request) with 11-ER-2328-36 (¶¶ 3-33 of second superseding indictment).
Count 11 charged Rana with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism in Denmark. 11-ER-2354. Count 12 charged him with providing material support to Lashkar, both in India and in Denmark. 11-ER-2356.
The jury acquitted Rana on Count 9 (conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism in India) and convicted him on Count 11 (conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism in Denmark). The jury also convicted Rana on Count 12 (providing material support to Lashkar), but it did not find that death resulted from his conduct. 11-ER-2366-68. In light of the verdicts on Counts 9 and 11, the Northern District of Illinois court concluded that the jury found Rana guilty on Count 12 of providing material support to Lashkar in Denmark but not in connection with the Mumbai massacre in India. 11-ER-2406 (“THE COURT: They specifically found that Rana did not cause any deaths, which eliminates the Mumbai massacre from the case, it seems to me.”).
Omitting a lot of legal arguments.On January 7, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois court sentenced Rana to 168 months in prison. On June 9, 2020, the court granted Rana’s motion for compassionate release and ordered him released immediately. 11-ER-2481.
2. On June 10, 2020, a Magistrate Judge in the Central District of California (where Rana was serving his sentence) signed a provisional arrest warrant with a view to extraditing him to India to face charges there. Doc. 1; 11-ER-2496. The Indian charges consist of conspiracy to commit various offenses, including to wage war, to murder, to commit two forms of forgery, and to commit a terrorist act (Charge 1); waging war (Charge 2); conspiracy to wage war (Charge 3); murder (Charge 4); committing a terrorist act (Charge 5); and conspiracy to commit a terrorist act (Charge 6). 2-ER-233-35, 244-50. As a result of the warrant and ensuing formal extradition request, Rana has remained in custody throughout the extradition process.
Rana opposed extradition on two grounds: that the double jeopardy provision of the United States- India extradition treaty (Article 6(1)) barred his extradition because the Indian charges rested on the same conduct for which Rana had been tried and acquitted in federal court in Chicago, and that India had failed to establish probable cause that Rana had committed the crimes for which India seeks to prosecute him.
On May 16, 2023, the extradition magistrate judge rejected Rana’s arguments and certified that he is extraditable. App. 39a. Rana petitioned the United States District Court for the Central District of California for a writ of habeas corpus. He again argued that extradition was barred under the double jeopardy provision of the extradition treaty. Habeas Doc. 1; 11-ER-2509. The district court denied Rana’s habeas petition on August 10, 2023. App. 33a.
The underlying issue is whether extradition would result in double jeopardy - i.e., facing trial twice for the same offense. In this regard, the US Courts have two different standards - "it is the same offense if the conduct being judged is the same" vs "it is the same offense if the elements being judged are the same".Third, Rana argued that the government’s interpretation of Article 6(1) in the case of David Headley, Rana’s alleged co-conspirator, further demonstrates that “offense” refers to conduct rather than elements.
Headley pleaded guilty and testified against Rana. In a section of Headley’s plea agreement titled “Extradition,” the government agreed that “[p]ursuant to Article 6 of [the Treaty], defendant shall not be extradited to the Republic of India . . . for any offenses for which he has been convicted in accordance with this plea.” 11-ER-2462. The extradition section continues: “The defendant and the United States Attorney’s Office accordingly agree” that if Headley pleads guilty to a series of offenses, “then the defendant shall not be extradited to the Republic of India . . . for the foregoing offenses, including conduct within the scope of those offenses for which he has been convicted in accordance with this plea, so long as he fully discloses all material facts concerning his role with respect to these offenses and abides by all other aspects of this agreement.” Id. (emphasis added).
This is the crux of his argument:
Anyway, this is the summary of the Ninth Court's ruling:Petitioner Rana was tried and acquitted in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on charges relating to the 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai. India now seeks to extradite him for trial on charges based on the identical conduct at issue in the Chicago case. Under the Second Circuit’s Sindona “conduct” standard, the double jeopardy provision of the United States-India extradition treaty would bar his extradition. But because he happens to be detained in the Ninth Circuit, the “elements” test applies. None of the Indian charges has the same elements as the charges on which Rana was tried in Chicago. So Rana now faces extradition to and a potential death sentence in India.
...
...
Rana’s case demonstrates the problem with the elements test. He was prosecuted in federal court in Chicago on charges focusing on his alleged conduct in connection with the Mumbai attack. After a full and fair trial, the jury acquitted him on those charges. He served his sentence on other charges, unrelated to the Mumbai attack, and prepared to return to his family. But on the eve of his release from prison, India obtained an arrest warrant so he could be extradited to that country to stand trial on charges based on the identical conduct for which the Chicago jury had found him not guilty. He has spent more than four years at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles awaiting the outcome of his extradition proceedings. Absent action from this Court, he will be shipped to India, where – if he survives pretrial detention – he will face the daunting prospect of trial, conviction, and a death sentence.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ap ... 08-15.html
What has India charged Rana with?Court Description: Habeas Corpus The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Tahawwur Hussain Rana’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging a magistrate judge’s certification of Rana as extraditable to India for his alleged participation in terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
Under the limited scope of habeas review of an extradition order, the panel held that Rana’s alleged offense fell within the terms of the extradition treaty between the United States and India, which included a Non Bis in Idem (double jeopardy) exception to extraditability “when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which extradition is requested.” Relying on the plain text of the treaty, the State Department’s technical analysis, and persuasive case law of other circuits, the panel held that the word “offense” refers to a charged crime, rather than underlying acts, and requires an analysis of the elements of each crime. The panel concluded that a coconspirator’s plea agreement did not compel a different result. The panel held that the Non Bis in Idem exception did not apply because the Indian charges contained distinct elements from the crimes for which Rana was acquitted in the United States.
The panel also held that India provided sufficient competent evidence to support the magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause that Rana committed the charged crimes.
https://casetext.com/case/in-re-rana-3
In particular, on August 28, 2018, Poonam A. Bamba, District and Sessions Judge, Special Court of National Investigation Agency, issued a warrant for Rana's arrest on charges related to the Mumbai attacks, including: (1) conspiracy to (a) wage war (Object 1), (b) commit murder (Object 3), (c) commit forgery for the purpose of cheating (Object 4), (d) use as genuine a forged document or electronic record (Object 5), and (e) commit a terrorist act (Object 6), in violation of Indian Penal Code ("IPC") § 120B read with IPC §§ 121, 302, 468, 471, and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act ("UAPA") § 16; (2) waging war, in violation of IPC § 121; (3) conspiracy to wage war, in violation of IPC § 121A; (4) murder, in violation of IPC § 302; (5) committing a terrorist act, in violation of UAPA § 16; and (6) conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, in violation of UAPA § 18. (Dkt. Nos. 4-1, 42-2, 66-2, 66-6, 66-15; Parasor Aff. ¶¶ 1-5, 12-13). The Indian Government has provided the following evidence in support of its request to extradite Rana on the aforementioned charges, including transcripts of Headley's testimony in the NDIL Case.