Hiya v. United States

── Hiya v. United States ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General 26-267 Hiya v. United States UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 24th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge. * _____________________________________ ERAN HIYA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 26-267 * Judge Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. _____________________________________ For Petitioner-Appellant: JUSTINE A. HARRIS, Harris Trzaskoma LLP, New York, NY. For Respondent-Appellee: DANA R. MCCANN, Assistant United States Attorney, for Jay Clayton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jeannette A. Vargas, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the January 22, 2026 order of the district court is AFFIRMED. Eran Hiya appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for bail pending extradition. Hiya faces charges in Israel, where allegedly – as head of a criminal syndicate called the “Hiya [G]ang,” App’x at 569 – he conspired to assassinate a rival gang leader. After a magistrate judge certified him for extradition, Hiya (i) filed a still-pending habeas action challenging that certification, and (ii) sought bail in the interim, which the district court denied after 2 concluding that Hiya both posed a flight risk and a danger to the community. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision. When reviewing a “detention challenge, we examine the district court’s factual determinations for clear error,” United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 317 (2d Cir. 2004), and will affirm unless we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, district courts apply “a more demanding standard” “for persons involved in extradition proceedings . . . [than] for ordinary accused criminals awaiting trial,” since granting bail in extradition cases risks frustrating “the treaty obligations of the United States.” Hu Yau-Leung v. Soscia, 649 F.2d 914, 920; see Wright v. Henkel, 190 U.S. 40, 62 (1903) (“The demanding government . . . is entitled to the delivery of the accused[,] . . . and the [responding] government is under obligation to make th