United States v. Prudencio Segura Castillo

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 16, 2025
• Docket: 8:24-cv-01849
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5

6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 8:24-01849 FWS (ADS)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION OF 14 PRUDENCIO SEGURA CASTILLO, EXTRADITION

15 Defendant.

16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 The United Mexican States (“Mexico”) has requested the extradition of 19 Prudencio Segura Castillo (the “Relator” or “Segura”) pursuant to the Extradition Treaty 20 between the United States of America (“United States”) and Mexico (the “Treaty”).1 The 21 charges in Mexico relate to an incident that allegedly occurred on February 24, 2020, at 22

23 1 Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, U.S.-Mex., May 4, 1978, 31 U.S.T. 5059, as amended by the Protocol to 24 the Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and the United Mexican 1 a family outing to a local lagoon. Relator, a U.S. resident, was visiting his wife and 2 children in Iguala, Mexico. Relator is married to Jovita Santana Espinoza (“Jovita”). 3 Jovita is sisters with Adela Santana Espinoza (“Adela”). Adela is the mother of the 4 alleged minor victim, V.R.S. Relator is charged in Mexico with the crime of sexual abuse 5 against V.R.S. stemming from allegations that he fondled V.R.S.’s vagina, while they

6 were both swimming in the lagoon at the family gathering. 7 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 8 On May 12, 2020, a Constitutional Rights Judge in Iguala de la Independencia, 9 Guerrero, Mexico, authorized by Mexican law to issue warrants of arrest, issued a 10 warrant for Relator’s arrest for sexual abuse, in violation of Article 180 of the Guerrero 11 Criminal Code. (Dkt. 27-2 at 6, 8, 31-51.) By judicial order dated June 27, 2022, the 12 same judge determined the statute of limitations period for the alleged crime would 13 expire on August 24, 2024. (Dkt. No. 29 at 31.) On June 9, 2023, Mexico submitted its 14 formal extradition request (the “Extradition Request”) and supporting documents to the 15 United States pursuant to the Treaty. (Dkt. 27-2 at 5.) On July 8, 2024, in accordance 16 with its Treaty obligations, the United States filed a Complaint for Arrest Warrant and

17 Extradition. (USA v. Castillo, No. 2:24-mj-04053-ADS, Dkt. 1.) That day, a warrant was 18 issued for Relator’s arrest. (USA v. Castillo, No. 2:24-mj-04053-ADS, Dkt. 2.) On July 19 11, 2024, the United States Marshals Service (the “Marshals”) arrested Relator in 20 Westminster, California. (USA v. Castillo, No. 2:24-mj-04053-ADS, Dkt. 12.) 21 Relator initially appeared before this Court on July 11, 2024, and was temporarily 22 detained, pending a detention hearing. (USA v. Castillo, No. 2:24-mj-04053-ADS, Dkt. 23

States of May 4, 1978, U.S.-Mex., Nov. 13, 1997, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-46 (1998) 24 (collectively the “Treaty”). 1 11.) On August 23, 2024, following additional briefing, the Court was prepared to hold a 2 detention hearing, but took the matter off the calendar after the Marshals took Relator 3 to the hospital. (Dkt. 26). The continued detention hearing was held on October 4, 2024. 4 (Id.) The Court ordered Relator remain in detention until the extradition hearing 5 scheduled for December 11, 2024. (Dkt. No. 35.) The parties stipulated to continue the

6 extradition hearing to April 11, 2025. (Dkt. No. 36.) On April 11, 2025, the Court held 7 the extradition hearing (the “Hearing”). (Dkt. No. 51.) Counsel for both parties were 8 present and presented oral argument. At the end of the hearing, the Court took the 9 matter under submission. 10 III. EVIDENCE 11 A. Evidence Presented By Requesting Country 12 The United States offers the information provided and authenticated by Mexico. 13 1. Statement of Alleged Victim

14 Mexico submitted a record of an interview V.R.S. gave to the Mexican prosecutor, 15 while accompanied by her mother and with a psychologist present. (V.R.S. Interview, 16 Dkt. No. 27-3 at 9-11.) V.R.S. stated that Relator is her uncle-in-law who traveled back 17 and forth between the United States and Mexico and that Relator arrived in Mexico in 18 January 2020. (Id. at 9.) V.R.S.’s declaration further states the following. 19 On February 24, 2020, the family, including V.R.S., V.R.S.’s mother Adela, 20 Relator’s wife Jovita, and Relator and V.R.S.’s cousins, went to Tuxpan Lagoon. (Id.) At 21 about four o’clock in the afternoon, the family set up tables, chairs and everything 22 needed for a family meal. (Id.) V.R.S. and her cousins went swimming in the lagoon. 23 (Id. at 9-10.) Around five o’clock, Adela said they were going to prepare hamburgers, 24 and Relator entered the lagoon to play with the children. (Id. at 10.) V.R.S. went away 1 from the other children to the deeper part of the lagoon, to avoid getting splashed. (Id.) 2 The water was up to V.R.S.’s waist. (Id.) 3 Relator came close to V.R.S. and grabbed her leg under the water. (Id.) V.R.S. 4 moved back but Relator was in front of her and put his right hand under her shorts. 5 (Id.) Relator grabbed and fondled V.R.S.’s vagina. (Id.) V.R.S. was scared and could

6 not move. (Id.) Relator removed his hand and told V.R.S. not to say anything, 7 threatening that he would do something worse to her. (Id.) Relator went away and 8 continued to play with his two sons as if nothing had happened. (Id.) 9 V.R.S. went to the shore with her cousins. (Id.) Her mother called her to eat but 10 V.R.S. was not hungry and wanted to cry. (Id.) Everyone in the family left the lagoon 11 and went home. (Id.) V.R.S. did not tell anyone about the incident until about a month 12 later. (Id.) 13 On March 20, 2020, V.R.S. decided to tell her mother and father about the 14 incident at the lagoon, after she saw a Facebook post from her sister, wherein her sister 15 shared that she had been raped as a child. (Id.) V.R.S. called her father, who came to 16 the home where V.R.S. and her mother live. (Id.) When her father arrived, V.R.S. told

17 her mother and her father that Relator had touched her vagina on February 24th at the 18 Tuxpan Lagoon. (Id.) V.R.S. no longer feared Relator’s threats because he had already 19 returned to the United States. (Id.) 20 Later, V.R.S.’s mother, Adela, asked V.R.S. to go see her Aunt Jovita, Relator’s 21 wife, and tell her what had happened. (Id.) V.R.S. told her Aunt Jovita and her 22 grandmother that Relator had touched her vagina. (Id.) Jovita got mad and did not 23 believe V.R.S. (Id.) Adela cried for several days until she brought V.R.S. to the 24 prosecutor to make a complaint against Relator. (Id. at 11.) 1 2. Statement of Alleged Victim’s Mother

2 The Extradition Request contains the statement Adela, V.R.S.’s mother, gave to 3 the Mexican prosecutor under oath when she made the complaint regarding Relator. 4 (Dkt. No. 27-3 at 18-20.) Adela stated the following. 5 Adela’s sister is married to Relator. (Dkt. No. 27-3 at 18.) Relator arrived in 6 Mexico at the end of January 2020. (Id.) On February 24, 2020, Adela went with her 7 sister and Relator and their children to the Tuxpan Lagoon. (Id. at 18-19.) At 5 p.m., 8 Adela saw that Relator got into the water. (Id. at 19.) When Adela saw that V.R.S. was 9 at the lagoon shore, she told V.R.S. to eat. (Id.) V.R.S. replied that she was not hungry 10 and got into the lagoon for a while longer. (Id.) Adela could see that V.R.S. was acting 11 weird. (Id.) 12 On March 20, 2020, at around 10 a.m., Adela was at home when V.R.S.’s father 13 arrived. (Id.) Adela, V.R.S. and her father, Mario, were in the living room together 14 where V.R.S. told her parents that on February 24, 2020, Relator had touched her 15 vagina at Tuxpan Lagoon. (Id.) V.R.S. told her parents that Relator was in the water in 16 the deepest part and put his right hand under V.R.S.’s shorts and squeezed her vagina.

17 (Id.) V.R.S. told them after that she came out of the water and went to shore with her 18 little cousins. (Id.) V.R.S. told her parents that when Relator got out of the lagoon, she 19 could go back in. (Id.) V.R.S. told her parents Relator had threatened her to stay silent 20 about the incident, and she had not told them earlier because she was afraid. (Id. at 19- 21 20.) 22 Afterwards, Adela took V.R.S. to Adela’s mother’s house and V.R.S. told Jovita 23 about what had happened. (Id. at 20.) Jovita did not believe V.R.S. (Id.) 24 1 3. Statement of Alleged Victim’s Father

2 Mexico submits a declaration from V.R.S.’s father, Mario, which states the 3 following. On March 20, 2020, at about 9:30 a.m., Mario received a call from his 4 daughter, V.R.S. (Dkt. No. 27-3 at 23.) V.R.S. was crying. (Id.) Mario went to the 5 house, at approximately 10 a.m. (Id.) Mario, V.R.S. and V.R.S.’s mother sat together in 6 the living room. (Id.) V.R.S. told her parents then about what happened on February 7 24, 2020, at the Tuxpan Lagoon. (Id.) V.R.S. told them that she had been in the water 8 playing with her cousins, when Relator entered the water, approached her, took her leg 9 under the water and touched her vagina with his right hand. (Id.) V.R.S. told her 10 parents that Relator threatened her that if she said anything he was going to do more 11 than simply touch her vagina. (Id.) V.R.S. told her parents that she did not eat at the 12 family gathering. (Id.) V.R.S. told her parents she had not told them about the incident 13 until then because she had been afraid of Relator’s threats, but he had since returned to 14 the United States. (Id.) 15 Adela asked V.R.S. who was close to V.R.S at the time and V.R.S. responded 16 Santiago and Jesus were there, but they did not see what Relator had done. (Id.) Mario

17 stated he was “really mad” and held his daughter in his arms. (Id.) Mario told Adela 18 that he would back up any decision she made. (Id.) They decided to file a complaint 19 against Relator with the Mexican public prosecutor. (Id.) 20 4. Psychological Report

21 Mexico submitted a psychological report (the “Psych Report”) with its extradition 22 request, which the United States filed under seal. (Dkt. No. 29 at 86-90.) A 23 professionally licensed psychologist interviewed and evaluated V.R.S. and issued the 24 report on May 6, 2020. (Id. at 86.) V.R.S.’s statement in the Psych Report states that 1 when she got back in the lagoon, her uncle also got in, approached her, pulled her by the 2 shirt and touched her vagina. (Id. at 88.) The conclusion of the Psych Report states that 3 V.R.S. presented emotional damage at the time of the evaluation. (Id. at 89.) 4 5. Identification of Relator

5 Both of V.R.S.’s parents identified photos of Relator, under oath, as the person 6 who committed the crime of sexual abuse against V.R.S. (Dkt. No. 27-3 at 28, 31.) 7 B. Evidence Proffered by Relator 8 Relator proffers eight declarations in opposition to the Request for Certification 9 of Extradition. A relator may proffer explanatory evidence, but not contradictory 10 evidence. See Hooker v. Klein, 573 F.2d 1360, 1369 (9th Cir. 1978) (evidence of facts 11 contradicting the demanding country's proof or establishing a defense may properly be 12 excluded); Santos v. Thomas, 830 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc)(evidence that 13 explains matters referred to by the witnesses for the government may be admitted, while 14 evidence that merely contradicts the testimony for the prosecution may be excluded). 15 The distinction is made because, among other reasons, the focus of the extradition 16 hearing is on probable cause, not ultimate guilt. Explanatory evidence “‘explains away

17 or completely obliterates probable cause.’” Rana v. Jenkins, 113 F.4th 1058, 1070 (9th 18 Cir. 2024) (quoting Santos, 830 F.3d at 992). Contradictory evidence merely 19 controverts the existence of probable cause or raises a defense and is not admissible. 20 See Mainero v. Gregg, 164 F.3d 1199, 1207 n.7 (9th Cir. 1999) (superseded by statute on 21 other grounds); Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309, 316 (1922) (“The function of the 22 committing magistrate is to determine whether there is competent evidence to justify 23 holding the accused to await trial, and not to determine whether the evidence is 24 sufficient to justify a conviction.”) Contradictory evidence that would require a mini 1 trial to weigh credibility is not admissible in an extradition hearing. See Charlton v. 2 Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 461 (1913) (An extradition “proceeding is not a trial.”); Rana, 113 3 F.4th at 1071 (attacks on credibility do not obliterate probable cause and require 4 “evaluations of credibility best left for trial.”) 5 1. Declaration of Ana Laura Garcia Isodoro

6 Relator proffers the declaration of Ana Laura Garcia Isodoro. (Dkt. No. 41 at 23.) 7 Ms. Garcia Isodoro is married to Relator’s step-son. (Id.) Ms. Garcia Isodoro attended 8 the family outing at Tuxpan Lagoon in February 2020. (Id.) She declares that when 9 everyone arrived at the lagoon, the adults unloaded the vehicles and Relator started 10 cooking the food on a grill he brought with him. (Id.) Ms. Garcia Isodoro states that the 11 children, including V.R.S., walked with her to the convenience store to get a snack and 12 then to a nearby house to borrow a chair. (Id.) According to Ms. Garcia Isodoro, after 13 those errands, the children, including V.R.S., went into the lagoon. (Id.) She states that 14 when Relator finished cooking, V.R.S. and the other children got out of the water, and 15 everyone ate together. (Id.) Ms. Garcia Isodoro states that after eating, the children and 16 some adults, including Relator, Jovita and Adela went into the lagoon. (Id.) Ms. Garcia

17 Isodoro declares that V.R.S. stayed close to the young children in the shallow water near 18 the shoreline and Ms. Garcia Isodoro did not observe Relator near V.R.S. in the water. 19 (Id. at 24.) 20 2. Declaration of Etelberta Martinez Santana

21 Ms. Martinez Santana is Relator’s stepdaughter. (Dkt. No. 41 at 28.) Ms. 22 Martinez Santana declares that she went on the family trip to the Tuxpan Lagoon. (Id.) 23 She states that once everything was set up, the children, including V.R.S., went into the 24 water, while the adults prepared the food. (Id.) She states that the children returned 1 from the lagoon and all of them seemed happy, including V.R.S. (Id. at 29.) According 2 to Ms. Martinez Santana, after the meal, the children went back into the water and the 3 Relator played in the water with the kids. (Id.) Ms. Martinez Santana attests that she 4 never saw Relator get close to V.R.S. in the water. (Id.) 5 In March 2020, Ms. Martinez Santana declares she ran into her aunt, Adela, who

6 told Ms. Martinez Santana that Relator had raped Adela’s oldest daughter, Kenia, but 7 Adela said nothing about V.R.S. (Id.) In June 2020, according to Ms. Martinez 8 Santana, Adela showed up at Jovita’s house with rocks and threw one at the house, 9 yelling and told them she would withdraw criminal charges filed against Relator 10 regarding Kenia if Jovita gave Adela her two homes and vehicle. (Id.) 11 3. Declaration of S.S.S.

12 S.S.S. is the teenage son of Relator and Jovita. (Dkt. No. 41 at 35.) S.S.S. 13 provided a declaration stating the following. In January 2020, S.S.S. was living in 14 Mexico when Relator visited from the United States. (Id.) Relator was recuperating 15 from a stroke that left half of his body paralyzed. (Id.) S.S.S. went to the Tuxpan 16 Lagoon with his family in February 2020. (Id.) 17 When the family arrived at the lagoon, S.S.S. went in the water but Relator 18 remained next to the barbecue grill. (Id.) When the food was ready, S.S.S. got out of the 19 water and ate, then returned to the water with his brother and Relator. (Id.) Relator 20 taught his sons how to swim in the deeper part of the lagoon. (Id.) S.S.S., his brother, 21 and Relator got out of the water at the same time, changed clothes and went home. (Id.) 22 After Relator returned to the United States, Adela came to Jovita’s house, cussed 23 at them and accused Relator of raping Kenia, Adela’s older daughter. (Id.) S.S.S. heard 24 Adela tell Jovita that if Jovita gave her money, Adela would not file a lawsuit with the 1 public prosecutor’s office. (Id.) but Adela did not mention V.R.S. (Id.) 2 4. Declaration of Jovita Santana Espinoza

3 Jovita is Relator’s wife and sister to Adela. (Dkt. No. 41 at 40.) Jovita declares 4 that she went on the family daytrip to Tuxpan Lagoon in February 2020. (Id.) Her 5 declaration further states the following. When everyone arrived at the lagoon, the adults 6 set up and the children went into the water. (Id.) Relator and Jovita set up the firepit to 7 the cook the hamburger patties. (Id.) When the food was ready, the children came out 8 of the water and the adults served the food. (Id.) After eating, the children went back 9 into the water. (Id.) Then, Jovita and Relator also went into the water. (Id.) 10 Jovita never saw Relator near V.R.S. (Id. at 41.) Jovita remembers that V.R.S. 11 stayed in the shallow, waist high part of the water, while Relator and their sons were in 12 the deeper area. (Id. at 40-41.) After swimming, they changed into dry clothing and 13 drove back to Jovita’s house. (Id. at 41.) The adults continued to socialize and the 14 children, including V.R.S., played together. (Id.) 15 5. Declaration of Elfega Manjarrez

16 Ms. Manjarrez is Relator’s sister-in-law and the sister of Jovita and Adela. (Dkt. 17 No. 41 at 46.) Ms. Manjarrez declares that she has known Relator for nearly two 18 decades and that he is kind, humble, respectful, responsible and loving with his family. 19 (Id.) She declares that Adela is emotionally unstable and envious. (Id.) Ms. Manjerrez 20 states that Adela lies to get money and never pays people back. (Id.) According to Ms. 21 Manjarrez, in March 2020, she was present at her mother’s house when Adela visited 22 their parents, crying, and Adela told them that Relator had abused Adela’s oldest 23 daughter Kenia. (Id.) Ms. Manjarrez states that she does not believe the accusations 24 against Relator because he is a good person and Adela cares about money more than 1 anything. (Id.) 2 6. Declaration of Jose Leonardo Santana Santana

3 Mr. Santana is Relator’s father-in-law, the father of Adela and Jovita, and the 4 grandfather of V.R.S. (Dkt. No. 41 at 49.) He declares that several years ago, Adela 5 came to his home while Jovita was there and accused Relator of having sexually abused 6 Adela’s oldest daughter, Kenia, when Kenia was seven years old. (Id.) Mr. Santana 7 states he was previously unaware of the accusations against Relator regarding V.R.S. 8 and does not believe them. (Id.) 9 7. Declaration of Victor Gomez

10 According to his declaration, Mr. Gomez is an investigator with the Office of the 11 Federal Public Defender for the Central District of California and is fluent in English 12 and Spanish. (Dkt. No. 41 at 52.) He declares that he interviewed Liboria Espinoza 13 Abarcia, V.R.S.’s maternal grandmother, via a video call on January 11, 2025. (Id.) 14 According to Mr. Gomez, Ms. Espinoza Abarca knew nothing about the allegations 15 V.R.S. made against Relator and does not recall Adela visiting her and telling her that 16 Relator abused V.R.S. or Kenia. (Id.) 17 8. Declaration of Pedro Santana

18 According to his declaration, Pedro Santana is Relator’s brother-in-law, the 19 brother of Adela and Jovita, and is V.R.S.’s uncle. (Dkt. No. 41 at 53.) He states that he 20 does not believe the allegations against Relator. (Id.) Pedro declares that his sister 21 Adela is manipulative, disrespectful, untrustworthy and causes problems. (Id.) Pedro 22 states Adela borrowed money from him and never paid him back and that he suspects 23 Adela is keeping money from their elderly parents’ pension. (Id.) 24 1 IV. STANDARD FOR CERTIFICATION OF EXTRADITION 2 Extradition is a diplomatic process, which begins when a foreign nation requests 3 an accused individual be delivered from the United States to answer for an alleged 4 crime. Manta v. Chertoff, 518 F.3d 1134, 1140 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Prasoprat v. Benov, 5 421 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2005)). The extradition request is made to the State

6 Department, which determines whether the request is within the scope of a treaty 7 between the requesting nation and the United States. Id. If the request is within the 8 scope of a treaty, a United States Attorney files a complaint in federal district court 9 seeking an arrest warrant for the requested individual. Prasoprat v. Benov, 421 F.3d 10 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Blaxland v. Commonwealth Dir. of Pub. Prosecutions, 11 323 F.3d 1198, 1207 (9th Cir.2003)). “After the United States has sought an arrest 12 warrant for the person to be extradited (known as the “relator”), a federal or state 13 judicial officer must hold a hearing to determine whether to certify the relator for 14 extradition.” Patterson v. Wagner, 785 F.3d 1277, 1279 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 18 U.S.C. 15 § 3184). 16 “For the Court to certify [Relator] as extraditable, the Government must establish

17 that (1) the extradition judge has jurisdiction to conduct proceedings; (2) the extradition 18 court has jurisdiction over the fugitive; (3) the extradition treaty is in full force and 19 effect; (4) the crime falls within the terms of the treaty; and (5) there is competent legal 20 evidence to support a finding of extraditability.” In re Extradition of Rana, 673 F. Supp. 21 3d 1109, 1124 (C.D. Cal. 2023) (citing Manta, 518 F.3d at 1140; Zanazanian v. United 22 States, 729 F.2d 624, 625-26 (9th Cir. 1984)) (cleaned up). Under the fifth factor, courts 23 consider whether competent legal evidence demonstrates probable cause to believe the 24 accused committed the crime charged by the foreign nation. Manta, 518 F.3d at 1140. 1 “In addition to its probable cause determination, the Court must also assess whether 2 any of the applicable treaty provisions bar extradition of the alien for any of the charged 3 offenses.” Id. (citing Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2000); Patterson, 4 785 F.3d at 1280) (cleaned up). 5 The extradition court must certify the relator as extraditable if it finds the

6 following: (1) the crime is extraditable and (2) probable cause exists to sustain the 7 charge. Manta, 518 F.3d at 1140. Upon certification by the court, the Secretary of State 8 “ultimately determines whether to extradite the accused to the requesting state.” 9 Martinez Santoyo v. Boyden, 130 F.4th 784, 788 (9th Cir. 2025). The magistrate judge 10 “does not weigh conflicting evidence and make factual determinations but, rather, 11 determines only whether there is competent evidence to support the belief that the 12 accused has committed the charged offense.” Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 815 (9th 13 Cir. 1986). “Extradition hearings are not trials, mini trials, nor dress rehearsals for trial. 14 Rather, they are designed only to trigger the start of criminal proceedings against an 15 accused; guilt remains to be determined in the courts of the demanding country.” 16 Martinez Santoyo, 130 F.4th at 788 (cleaned up). “Foreign states requesting extradition

17 are not required to litigate their criminal cases in American courts.” Santos, 830 F.3d at 18 991. 19 V. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS 20 A. Jurisdiction 21 Relator does not contest the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter or personal 22 jurisdiction over Relator. (Opp., Dkt. No. 41 at 11-12). This Court has jurisdiction to 23 conduct extradition proceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3184, Local Rule 72-1, 24 and General Order No. 05-07 of the United States Court for the Central District of 1 California. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Relator because he was arrested on 2 the extradition warrant in Orange County on July 11, 2024. Therefore, he was found 3 within the Court’s jurisdiction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3184 (“magistrate judge….may, upon 4 complaint made under oath, charging any person found within his jurisdiction, ... issue 5 his warrant for the apprehension of the person so charged, that he may be brought

6 before such… magistrate judge, to the end that the evidence of criminality may be heard 7 and considered.”); United States v. Perilla Umbarila, 562 F. Supp. 3d 729, 735 (C.D. Cal. 8 2022) (“Court has jurisdiction over a fugitive found within its jurisdictional 9 boundaries.”) The Court finds that subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction 10 exist here. 11 B. Valid Extradition Treaty 12 There is no dispute regarding the existence of a valid extradition treaty, in full 13 force and effect, between Mexico and the United States. (Opp., at 12.) The Government 14 has provided a declaration from Tom Heinemann, an attorney in the Office of the Legal 15 Adviser for the Department of State, attesting that the extradition treaty between the 16 United States and Mexico is in full force and effect. (Dkt. No. 27-1 at 2.) The Court

17 defers to the Department of State’s determination in this regard. See, e.g., Then v. 18 Melendez, 92 F.3d 851, 853 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court finds that a valid extradition 19 treaty is in full force and effect. 20 C. Extraditable Offense 21 Relator does not contest that the crime of sexual abuse is an extraditable offense. 22 (Opp. at 12.) The Government has established that the alleged crime of sexual abuse is 23 extraditable under the extradition statute and the Treaty. (Dkt. No. 27-1 at 23-25, Dkt. 24 No. 27-2 at 6, 22, Dkt. No. 31 at 24.) The Court finds that the alleged offense is 1 extraditable. 2 D. Probable Cause 3 The only issue before the Court is whether probable cause exists that Relator 4 committed the alleged crime. The alleged crime is sexual abuse pursuant to Article 180 5 of the Criminal Code of the State of Guerrero, which consists of the following elements:

6 (1) whoever performs a sexual act on another person, (2) without consent of the person, 7 and (3) without the purpose of copulation. (Dkt. No. 27-3 at 6-7.) 8 The Government argues that evidence submitted with the extradition request 9 establishes probable cause that Relator committed sexual abuse against V.R.S. (Govt. 10 Memo, Dkt. No. 31 at 26.) The Government contends that V.R.S.’s declaration, attesting 11 that Relator grabbed V.R.S.’s leg under the water, put his hand inside her shorts and 12 fondled her vagina, along with her parents’ corroborating declarations and the Psych 13 Report showing emotional damage, establish probable cause. (Id.) Further, the 14 Government argues that V.R.S.’s statement establishes probable cause for the elements 15 of sexual abuse because it is clear from her testimony that she did not consent to Relator 16 performing a sexual act on her, and that Relator did not intend copulation. (Id.)

17 In opposition, Relator argues that probable cause does not exist. Relator 18 contends that the declarations he proffers, which impeach Adela’s character and state 19 that Adela initially accused Relator of raping her oldest daughter Kenia, “obliterate” 20 Adela’s credibility. (Opp., Dkt. No. 41 at 16.) According to Relator, Mexico’s evidence 21 cannot establish probable cause because Mexico’s investigation was inadequate. (Id.) 22 Relator argues that the declarations of others who were present at the lagoon show a 23 different timeline of events than V.R.S.’s declaration. (Id. at 16-17.) Lastly, Relator 24 challenges the competency of V.R.S.’s declaration to establish probable cause because of 1 purported inconsistencies in her story and a lack of corroboration. (Id. at 20-22.) 2 In reply, the Government contends that Relator’s arguments and evidence fail to 3 undermine the probable cause showing because Relator’s proffered evidence is 4 contradictory, a relator cannot attack the credibility of the requesting country’s 5 declarant, and alleged contradictions or inconsistencies in V.R.S.’s statement do not

6 destroy probable cause. (Reply, Dkt. No. 50 at 8-9.) 7 The probable cause standard under the extradition statute is the same 8 requirement as the familiar domestic criminal standard. Compare 18 U.S.C.A. § 3184 9 (“the evidence sufficient to sustain the charge”) with Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111 10 (1975) (evidence sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the suspect has 11 committed the offense). At the extradition hearing, the probable cause inquiry is 12 analogous to that of a preliminary hearing in a criminal setting. Santos, 830 F.3d at 991. 13 “Probable cause ‘is not a high bar.’” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 57 14 (2018) (quoting Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320, 338 (2014)). Probable cause exists 15 when a prudent person would conclude there is a fair probability the suspect had 16 committed the crime. United States v. Ortiz-Hernandez, 427 F.3d 567, 573 (9th Cir.

17 2005). 18 The Government has established probable cause. V.R.S.’s declaration is 19 “competent evidence to support the belief that [Relator] has committed the charged 20 offense.” See Quinn, 783 F.2d at 815. Contrary to Relator’s arguments, a lack of 21 credibility or inconsistencies in Mexico’s witness statements do not obliterate probable 22 cause but are “merely a weakness” in Mexico’s case. See Man-Seok Choe v. Torres, 525 23 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2008) (lack of credibility of requesting country’s witness does 24 not obliterate probable cause and evidence impeaching witness’s credibility is not 1 admissible); Quinn, 783 F.2d at 815 (“[Relator] contends that because of these 2 irregularities the evidence is unreliable and cannot be considered ‘competent,’ . . . and 3 that it thus cannot support the probable cause finding. We disagree.”) 4 Relator’s proffered evidence does not defeat the Government’s showing. The 5 credibility and fact determinations that Relator implicitly asks the Court to make are

6 outside the well-established scope of an extradition hearing. See Santos, 830 F.3d at 993 7 (“an individual contesting extradition may not . . . call into question the credibility of the 8 government’s offer of proof”); Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 749 (9th Cir. 2005) 9 (en banc) (extradition courts do not weigh conflicting evidence in making their probable 10 cause determinations); In Matter of Extradition of Azizi, No. 5:14-XR-90282 PSG, 2015 11 WL 1299791, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015) (“attacks on credibility, evidence 12 establishing a defense to the merits of the charges, and evidence that does not accept the 13 requesting country's evidence as true are considered ‘contradictory,’ not ‘explanatory,’ 14 evidence” and thus impermissible in extradition hearings). The Court finds probable 15 cause exists to support certifying the extradition of Relator. 16 VI. CONCLUSION

17 For the reasons discussed above, the Court will issue a separate order certifying 18 Prudencio Segura Castillo for extradition to Mexico on the charges of sexual abuse 19 against V.R.S. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Dated: 4/16/2025 22 _____/s/ Autumn D. Spaeth__________ 23 THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH United States Magistrate Judge 24