The United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals recently ruled that a Red Notice “may constitute reliable evidence that indicates the serious nonpolitical crime bar for asylum and withholding of removal applies to an alien.”

This means that the Red Notice itself may be viewed by immigration officials as a sufficient reason to prevent an asylum claim or a withholding of removal claim from even being heard.

The decision, found here, highlights the significance of supplying the immigration officials with any court documents- rather than a lawyer’s statement alone- that support an applicant’s argument that a Red Notice was improperly issued or is otherwise invalid.

The court also held that an applicant has the burden of showing that the Red Notice is not the type of evidence referenced above, once the government has asserted it as such. In order to meet that burden, an applicant would do well to submit a court order substantiating his claim whenever possible. Obviously, it can be quite difficult to obtain court documents in some jurisdictions; when that is the case, the court must be informed of that fact.

It’s always the case that an applicant or litigant can increase her chances of success by educating the court on the true nature of a case. This is accomplished by submitting competent, substantial evidence in support of her position well in advance of a hearing so that the judge has the opportunity to review the evidence ahead of the scheduled hearing.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.


The concerns held by Red Notice subjects who are working towards the removal of their Red Notices now also include the effect of the Coronavirus on the progress of their cases. While we cannot predict everything to come, here’s what we do know:

  • The work required to challenge a Red Notice is largely capable of being done remotely, so for most people, it can continue. Naturally, law firms will have to make some adjustments to deal with the new work environment, but many of us have had the capability of working remotely for years due to the nature of this practice and little change is necessary.
  • The CCF is still running and operational. While every country is addressing the health issue differently, up to this point, the CCF has been available for and responsive to inquiries.
  • For those Red Notice subjects who are also dealing with immigration matters in the United States, we know that:
    • matters such as interviews and in-person meetings with USCIS have been canceled through April 1st;
    • filing deadlines with USCIS and the courts do still apply, so attorneys are working on those as normal; and
    • immigration court for non-detained hearings are generally being postponed across the country.

As more information becomes available, we will share it. In the meantime, as always, comments and questions are welcomed.


The main purpose of an INTERPOL Red Notice is for INTERPOL’s member countries to help each other find and extradite fugitives and bring them to justice.

So why do we sometimes see a wanted person living openly in another country, without being extradited to the country where she is wanted by the authorities?

  • A common requirement in extradition treaties is dual criminality requirement, meaning that the crime for which one country seeks the extradition of an individual must also be a crime in the country where the individual is currently located.
  • For example, in some countries, the crime of criminal association alone is enough for prosecution. In other countries, that crime must be prosecuted along with another crime in order to be valid.
  • Without dual criminality, extradition proceedings normally will not occur.
  • BUT, removal from another country can happen without extradition. In our next segment, I’ll talk about other methods of removal.

When an individual is wanted by any member country of INTERPOL, international travel always poses a risk of detention.

  • When a member country uses its access to INTERPOL’s databases, it should be alerted to an individual’s status as the subject of a notice.
  • Member countries handle such “hits” differently, with some treating a Red Notice as an arrest warrant, and others requiring a domestic warrant to be issued prior to detention.

Red Notice subjects have experienced all kinds of responses to an INTERPOL hit arising during their travels:

  • some have been ordered back onto the plane and back to their departure countries;
  • some have been briefly questioned;
  • some have been detained and released on bond; and
  • some have been detained, arrested, and jailed pending further court proceedings.

The question of whether to travel while wanted internationally really comes down to the level of risk that is acceptable to the wanted person.

(Today’s post is courtesy of guest author, Isabel Alcántara*)

According to INTERPOL’s most recent Annual Report, police worldwide searched INTERPOL’s databases 5.4 billion times in 2018 [this is an increase of 18% from 2017]. The increase may be due to the implementation of new systems, such as:

• The STADIA Knowledge Management System, which supports security of major events, such as sporting and political events.

• The facial recognition database that was launched in 2016.

• A new version of INTERPOL’s International Child Sexual Exploitation database that was launched in June of 2019, making it simpler to populate the database with new images and videos.

• The I-ONE initiative launched in April 2018 to upgrade equipment in 31 African National Central Bureaus, which give police at airports, seaports and land border crossings access to INTERPOL’s secure I-24/7 network that supports automatic traveler screening.

These systems, among the 18 INTERPOL databases, make more information available to INTERPOL and the entities that search its databases.

Amidst the stored data are INTERPOL’s color-coded notices, which are international alerts for fugitives, suspected criminals, persons and entities subject to UN Security Council Sanctions, potential threats, missing persons, dead bodies and criminal methods. Details on these notices are stored in a database known as the INTERPOL Criminal Information System. National police use this database during their investigations via I-24/7, a secure global police communications system.

At the request of the member country or international entity, extracts of notices may also be published on the Organization’s public website.

Law enforcement searches of INTERPOL’s databases in 2018 resulted in 1.1 million ‘hits’- instances where data stored in the databases matched search criteria. National police then decide on what action to take upon making a positive match.

All of this increased data entry and storage capability means that someone who has traveled internationally out of the country where her criminal charges originated is increasingly likely to have a Red Notice published under her name.

In the next post, we’ll discuss how some individuals handle getting ahead of a red notice by submitting preemptive requests to INTERPOL.

* Isabel Alcántara is a juris doctor candidate in her third year at St. Thomas University School of law. Her most recent achievements include being awarded the Book Award in both Legal Storytelling and Persuasion and Space Law. Book Awards honor academic achievement by recognizing the top student in each course.

A Red Notice Law Journal reader  recently asked a common question arises when one’s life is touched by INTERPOL.  The question:

How can you check whether you have a red notice in your name? I checked the Interpol site but I feel information is not accurate or updated. Please advise.

  • The answer is, of course, it depends. A small percentage of INTERPOL’s Red Notices are actually published on INTERPOL’s website.  The reason for this is that many of INTERPOL’s member countries choose not to publish the majority of their Red notices.  Bear in mind that the member countries own the information, and INTERPOL is the temporary keeper of the information for purpose of providing assistance to law enforcement officials who are looking for the subject.
  • While some Red Notice subjects will find themselves on the website, the majority do not. They learn of to the Red Notice when they travel or attempt to travel, apply for immigration benefits, or receive a notice of account closure from their financial institutions.
  • The reason for the non-publication of most notices is that a wanted person is less likely to travel if he is aware of a Red Notice, so the person is more difficult to apprehend. When a Red Notice subject travels, it’s more likely that identification checks at ports of entry to member countries will result in a “hit” in INTERPOL’s databases, thereby alerting authorities to his presence and providing the opportunity for detention.

And that’s why Interpol doesn’t list all the RN subjects on its website.


Clients who are the subjects of Red Notices frequently and understandably feel a sense of outrage over the fact that a Red Notice has been issued against them when they are in fact innocent of the charges in the underlying arrest warrant.

When clients ask if INTERPOL will withdraw a Red Notice based on innocence, the unfortunate answer is, no. In fact, INTERPOL:

  • clearly states that people who are subjects of Red Notices are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
  • is not a trier of fact, like a judge or jury
  • It acts as a communicator of information between law enforcement agencies, and aids in bringing the subjects of Red Notices before the proper authority for trial or sentencing.

INTERPOL’s job is not to decide if person is guilty – it’s to help locate the person and return her for trial or sentencing IF the process leading up to the Red Notice was fair and legal according to INTERPOL’s rules.

INTERPOL assists in locating and extraditing people wanted for prosecution or to serve sentences in criminal cases. Matters of a civil nature are not matters within the scope of INTERPOL’s organization. However, sometimes cultural differences – and the accompanying legislative differences- create stark distinctions between the types of matters that countries consider to be criminal.

For example, a recent article by the Korean Broadcasting System (“KBS”) highlights the way that South Korea treats defamation as compared to other INTERPOL member countries. In most countries, defamation and libel are civil matters for which someone can be sued to recover financial damages. In South Korea, however, defamation can form the basis of a criminal charge. The article reports:

South Korean police have requested Interpol to nullify the passport of a Korean-Canadian, who has been sued for defamation and fraud in South Korea in connection with a sexual abuse scandal surrounding a late actress.

The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency revealed on Monday that it also asked for a Red Notice from Interpol to arrest actress and model Yoon Ji-oh.

The 32-year-old has been staying in Canada since April after several lawsuits were filed against her in South Korean courts. She is accused of damaging the legacy of her former colleague Jang Ja-yeon by posing as a key witness to the alleged abuse that Jang faced and profiting from the attention that she earned.

Police involvement in defamation cases in South Korea are not uncommon; this past summer an actress from the country filed a police report alleging “defamation and insult” following a public divorce and media coverage.

This difference in the treatment of defamation will likely become problematic for South Korea. When other member countries do not regard an act as criminal, their laws will not allow them to participate in a person’s extradition for that act. INTERPOL’s rules prevent it from being involved in cases where an act is not ordinarily considered a crime; those rules specifically state that crimes arising from cultural or religious norms of a given member country will not be the subject of INTERPOL involvement. Red Notice requests in these kinds of cases are likely to be denied once INTERPOL becomes aware of the nature of the case.

It will be interesting to see how INTERPOL responds to South Korea’s request.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

One of the most frequent concerns cited by our Red Notice clients is what could happen even if they succeed in their efforts to remove a Red Notice. Most people who challenge Red Notices do so because they have tried to resolve the matter at the country of origin and failed, or because the country of origin has shown that it will not act fairly in the case. Naturally, the client wonders what that country will do if and when INTERPOL removes the Red Notice: will the country accept defeat, or will it change tactics and try again to capture the individual with INTERPOL’s help?

A reader sent in this question on that topic recently:

Is it possible to submit a preventive request at the CCF to prevent/block additional notices (i.e. Diffusion) to be issued in the future for the same case.? Because the people who filled the first red notice, they my might try to send another one (diffusion) without the case being compliant with INTERPOL’s rules since they are aware that the first red notice is being challenged, and eventually removed.

I just discovered that even if the INTERPOL refused to issue a Red Notice in the future, any country can still be able to use INTERPOL’s systems to issue another, less “formal” wanted person alert – called a ‘diffusion’ notice. Without any prior review by INTERPOL. “diffusion” notices can be circulated directly between countries. Despite being notified of the decision not to issue a formal red notice, INTERPOL’s member countries are not required to remove this diffusion from their databases. As a result, my name is likely to appear on police databases across the globe, leaving me at risk to travel.

Unfortunately, there is still some part in this world where money can be used to spoil other people’s reputation.

Many Thanks for your help and support!

When people have concerns that a member country may request another Red Notice, or a diffusion, after the original notice has been removed, there is recourse available. Regardless of the form the data takes, be it in a Red Notice, a diffusion, or any other type of notice, INTERPOL does not want to possess or circulate data that violates its rules. If there is a reasonable chance that a second (or third or fourth) effort by a member country is going to violate INTERPOL’s rules, the individual would be wise to advise INTERPOL of the possibility of additional data being circulated, and request to be advised if that happens. This will keep INTERPOL alert to the misuse of its system and allow the individual to respond if necessary.

Obviously, no system is fail-proof, but open communication is a start to a client’s ongoing freedom from INTERPOL misuse.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.


One of the primary purposes of a Red Notice is for INTERPOL’s member countries to assist each other in finding Red Notice subjects and extraditing them back to the countries who seek to prosecute or sentence them.

Sometimes, when authorities find a Red Notice subject in their country and alert the original requesting country to his whereabouts, the original requesting country does not take the steps necessary to extradite him. A RNLJ reader provides an example of this situation in his recent inquiry:

“I was arrested and sat in prison for 22 days because of a red notice… but the requesting country didn’t answer and didn’t send any documents to authorities of the country where I was arrested… After this situation, can I be arrested again in the same country? Is there any rule or term of Interpol’s constitution which blocks or ends the red notice in a case where there is no answer or no proceedings from the requesting country?”

We’ll take the questions in turn.

Can I be arrested again in the same country?

When a country ultimately refuses extradition of a detained Red Notice, it is unlikely that the country would release him, only to detain him again for the same proceedings at a later time, unless there is new information available that would make the extradition proceedings successful.

Is there any rule or term of Interpol’s constitution which blocks or ends the red notice in a case where there is no answer or no proceedings from the requesting country?

If a requesting country fails to supply the necessary information to the country where the Red Notice subject has been found, or the extradition is denied for any other reason, INTERPOL typically places an addendum on the Red Notice explaining that the second country denied extradition. If the grounds for extradition refusal are also grounds for a Red Notice’s removal, INTERPOL will remove the Red Notice. Article 82 of INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data states that a purpose of a Red Notice is to aid in extradition. If the requesting country is not using the notice for that purpose, INTERPOL may decide to remove it.

Because of the fact that flaws in the underlying charges often cause extradition denial, Red Notice subjects in those cases should examine the notice with their attorneys for possible grounds for for removal.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.