Alicog v. Kingdom of Saudi ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 95-20219
________________________
JOSEPH ALICOG and
SRIYAI MARIAN FERNANDO
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA, ET AL
Defendants,
KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA,
MAJID AFIFI, and SALIM AFIFI
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(CA-H-93-4169)
____________________________________________________
February 14, 1996
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Josephine Alicog and Sriyani Fernando appeal the district court’s judgment granting
summary judgment in favor of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Majid Afifi. The district court held
that the Saudi Arabian government’s actions in taking the plaintiffs’ passports and holding the plaintiffs
against their will in a Houston hotel fell within the discretionary tort exception of the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act. The district court found, under Risk v. Halvorsen, 936 F.2d 393 (9th Cir.
1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1035, 112 S. Ct. 880, 116 L. Ed. 2d 784 (1992), that the act was
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
discretionary because one of a consulate’s primary functions is to handle travel documents. The district
court also concluded that the Saudi Arabian government acted within its discretion because the
detention arose from concerns regarding Immigration and Naturalization Service Regulations and
potential diplomatic problems. Moreover, the abuse alleged by the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that
the Saudi Arabian government exceeded its discretion. We agree with the reasons presented by the
district court in granting the Saudi Arabian government’s motion for summary judgment.
Regarding the dismissal of the claims against defendant, Majid Afifi, the district court held that
the plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment. It also held that because
Afifi was merely acting as an agent to an immune foreign sovereignty, he too was immune. Without
deciding the question of immunity as to Afifi, we agree with the district court that there is insufficient
evidence in the record to show that Afifi falsely imprisoned the plaintiffs. Because the plaintiffs failed
to present sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding Afifi’s liability, the
district court correctly dismissed their claims against him.
After a thorough review of the record and consideration of the arguments and briefs, we
AFFIRM the granting of the summary judgments.