Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Ahmed Amer

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
110 F.3d 873, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 6145, 1997 WL 160775 (1997)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA) is not unconstitutionally vague when applied to a parent who retains long-term U.S. resident children overseas for a significant period, nor does the Act implicitly incorporate affirmative defenses found in the civil Hague Convention beyond the three defenses expressly listed in the statute.


Facts:

  • Ahmed and Mona Amer, Egyptian citizens, lived in Queens, New York, with their three children (two born in the U.S., one a long-term U.S. resident).
  • The marriage deteriorated due to Ahmed's alleged abuse and bigamy, leading Ahmed to move out of the family home while the children remained with Mona.
  • Ahmed frequently pressured Mona to move the family back to Egypt, which she refused to do.
  • On January 27, 1995, Ahmed visited the apartment for dinner; while Mona was out shopping, he took the three children to the airport and flew them to Egypt without Mona's permission.
  • Ahmed left the children in Egypt with his mother and returned to the United States alone in June 1995.
  • The children remained in Egypt, and Mona was unable to see or contact them.

Procedural Posture:

  • Mona filed a complaint in Queens Family Court seeking custody.
  • The Queens Family Court awarded Mona full legal custody and issued a warrant for Ahmed's arrest.
  • Ahmed obtained a conflicting custody order from an Egyptian court.
  • Ahmed was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for violating the IPKCA.
  • A jury in the District Court convicted Ahmed on the sole count of the indictment.
  • The District Court sentenced Ahmed to prison and imposed a special condition of supervised release requiring him to return the children to the U.S.
  • Ahmed appealed the conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA) unconstitutionally vague, violative of the Free Exercise Clause, or interpreted to include affirmative defenses from the Hague Convention in a criminal prosecution?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Judge Jon O. Newman

No, the IPKCA is constitutionally valid and does not incorporate Hague Convention civil defenses into criminal proceedings. Regarding vagueness, the court reasoned that a defendant whose conduct clearly falls within the core of a statute cannot challenge it for vagueness based on hypothetical edge cases. Ahmed's retention of the children for six months clearly violated the statute. Regarding the Free Exercise claim, the court held that the IPKCA is a neutral law of general applicability that punishes conduct regardless of religious motivation. regarding the Hague Convention, the court determined that Congress explicitly listed only three affirmative defenses in the IPKCA. The court reasoned that the criminal statute was designed to fill the enforcement gap for countries (like Egypt) that are not signatories to the Hague Convention, and allowing Hague defenses in criminal trials would not further the Convention's goals in this context.



Analysis:

This is a case of first impression for the Second Circuit regarding the IPKCA. It establishes critical precedents for international custody disputes that turn into criminal matters. First, it clarifies that 'parental rights' are defined by the law of the state of habitual residence (here, New York). Second, it severely limits the defenses available to a defendant, rejecting the argument that the 'best interests of the child' or 'religious rights' defenses found in the civil Hague Convention apply to criminal prosecutions. This makes it significantly harder for parents to defend against kidnapping charges by claiming they were acting for religious reasons or because the other parent was 'unfit' in a way that didn't meet the specific statutory exceptions (like domestic violence). The court also affirmed the power of sentencing judges to order the return of children as a condition of supervised release.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Ahmed Amer (1997)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"