Legal News - Lawyer Monthly https://www.lawyer-monthly.com Legal News Magazine Mon, 09 Mar 2026 10:24:24 +0000 en-GB hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.1 https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/cropped-favicon-32x32.jpg Legal News - Lawyer Monthly https://www.lawyer-monthly.com 32 32 Iranian Intelligence Operative Asif Merchant Convicted in Plot to Assassinate U.S. Politicians https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2026/03/iranian-intelligence-operative-asif-merchant-convicted-in-plot-to-assassinate-u-s-politicians/ Mon, 09 Mar 2026 10:24:24 +0000 https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/?p=92009 A federal jury has convicted Asif Merchant, also known as Asif Raza Merchant, of murder-for-hire and terrorism offences linked to a plot to assassinate U.S. politicians and government officials.

The U.S. Department of Justice said Merchant travelled to the United States on behalf of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to recruit individuals to carry out the killings before the plan was disrupted by law enforcement.

Authorities said the investigation prevented any attack from taking place and resulted in Merchant’s arrest in July 2024.

What Happened

According to the Justice Department and court filings, Merchant travelled to the United States in April 2024 to recruit individuals capable of carrying out an assassination plot targeting American political figures.

Investigators say Merchant contacted an acquaintance in New York whom he believed could assist with the scheme. The individual instead alerted law enforcement and began cooperating with investigators as a confidential source.

During meetings in New York in early June 2024, Merchant allegedly outlined a plan involving several criminal activities.

Court filings state that these included stealing documents from a target’s home, staging a protest at a political rally, and arranging the killing of a politician or government official.

The confidential source later introduced Merchant to two individuals he believed were hired assassins. In reality, they were undercover law-enforcement officers.

According to prosecutors, Merchant told the individuals that the identity of the intended victim would be provided after he had left the United States and communicated with them from overseas.

Court documents further state that Merchant provided $5,000 in cash as an advance payment connected to the planned assassination scheme.

Investigators say Merchant also conducted internet searches about political rallies and reviewed security arrangements before the planned attack.

Merchant later arranged to leave the United States on 12 July 2024, but federal agents arrested him before he departed the country.

The Government’s Case

Prosecutors argued that Merchant travelled to the United States as part of a mission linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

According to the Justice Department, Merchant testified during the trial that the IRGC had sent him to the United States to arrange political assassinations and obtain documents.

Authorities said the case demonstrated how coordinated intelligence and law-enforcement operations can disrupt potential attacks before they are carried out.

Attorney General Pamela Bondi said the investigation showed the Justice Department’s continued focus on identifying and preventing terrorism threats targeting the United States.

FBI Director Kash Patel said the case illustrates the role of federal law-enforcement partnerships in detecting and preventing foreign-linked plots against individuals inside the country.

Legal Exposure and Penalties

Merchant was convicted by a federal jury of:

  • Murder for hire

  • Attempting to commit an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries

According to the Justice Department, Merchant faces a potential sentence of up to life imprisonment following the conviction.

A sentencing date has not yet been announced.

The offence of attempting to commit an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries is commonly used in U.S. national security prosecutions involving alleged plots by foreign actors targeting individuals or institutions connected to the United States.

What Happens Next

The Justice Department framed the case as a national security prosecution involving an operative linked to a foreign government-connected organisation.

The conviction reflects the U.S. government’s continued use of federal criminal statutes, including murder-for-hire and terrorism offences, to disrupt alleged plots connected to foreign intelligence networks operating inside the United States.

Authorities also highlighted the role of undercover investigations and cooperation between multiple law-enforcement agencies in identifying and preventing potential attacks.

Following the jury’s verdict, the case will now proceed to the sentencing phase in federal court.

Merchant faces a potential sentence of up to life imprisonment, although the final penalty will be determined by the court at a future sentencing hearing.

Case details

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Case: United States v. Asif Merchant
Case number: 1:24-mj-00467
Case posture: Jury conviction
Lead investigative agencies: FBI and partner law-enforcement agencies
DOJ components: National Security Division and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York
Date of announcement: 6 March 2026

People Also Ask

Who is Asif Merchant?
Asif Merchant, also known as Asif Raza Merchant, is an Iranian intelligence operative convicted in the United States of terrorism and murder-for-hire offences linked to a plot targeting American politicians.

What was Asif Merchant accused of?
U.S. prosecutors said Merchant travelled to the United States to recruit individuals to carry out political assassinations and other criminal acts before the plot was disrupted by law enforcement.

What sentence could Asif Merchant receive?
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Merchant faces a potential sentence of up to life imprisonment following his conviction.

]]> UK Supreme Court Rejects Spain’s Sovereign Immunity Defence in €101M Investment Arbitration Case https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2026/03/uk-supreme-court-rejects-spains-sovereign-immunity-defence-in-e101m-investment-arbitration-case/ Mon, 09 Mar 2026 09:34:17 +0000 https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/?p=92004 The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has ruled that foreign states cannot rely on sovereign immunity to block the enforcement of arbitration awards issued under the ICSID Convention.

In Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l and another v Kingdom of Spain, decided on 4 March 2026, the Court unanimously dismissed Spain’s appeal and confirmed that ICSID awards can be registered and enforced in the United Kingdom without states invoking immunity to prevent the process.

The ruling clarifies how the State Immunity Act 1978 interacts with the UK’s obligations under the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966.

For investors and arbitration practitioners, the judgment reinforces London’s role as a jurisdiction where treaty arbitration awards can be recognised even when sovereign respondents resist enforcement.

The Dispute

The case arose from investment arbitration proceedings brought by Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l and Energia Termosolar B.V. against Spain.

The investors alleged that regulatory changes affecting Spain’s renewable-energy support regime breached the country’s obligations under international investment law.

An arbitral tribunal constituted under the ICSID framework ruled in favour of the investors and awarded approximately €101 million in compensation.

The investors then applied to register the award in England under the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966, which implements the UK’s obligations under the ICSID Convention.

Spain sought to have the registration set aside, arguing that as a sovereign state it was protected by immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 and could not be subjected to enforcement proceedings in English courts.

The dispute had previously reached the Court of Appeal, which rejected Spain’s argument and held that participation in the ICSID Convention entails acceptance that awards may be recognised and enforced in other contracting states.

Spain appealed that decision to the UK Supreme Court.

The appeal was heard together with a related case involving Republic of Zimbabwe v Border Timbers Ltd, which raised similar issues concerning sovereign immunity and the enforcement of ICSID arbitration awards.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court dismissed Spain’s appeal.

The Court held that a state that has agreed to the ICSID Convention cannot rely on sovereign immunity to prevent the registration of an ICSID arbitration award in the courts of another contracting state.

The justices concluded that registering an ICSID award under the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966 does not involve a substantive determination of the dispute by the court.

Instead, the registration process is a procedural step required by the Convention to give effect to the award.

Because the court does not reconsider the merits of the underlying dispute, the process does not constitute the type of judicial determination from which sovereign immunity would normally protect a foreign state.

The ruling therefore upheld the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed that the investors were entitled to register the €101 million award in England.

How the Court Got There

The case required the Court to interpret the relationship between two legal frameworks: the ICSID Convention, which establishes a global system for investor–state arbitration, and the State Immunity Act 1978, which governs when foreign states can be subject to the jurisdiction of UK courts.

Article 54 of the ICSID Convention requires contracting states to recognise ICSID awards as binding and enforce them as if they were final judgments of their own courts.

Spain argued that this obligation did not amount to consent to domestic court proceedings and that sovereign immunity should therefore prevent enforcement in the UK.

The investors argued that participation in the ICSID system necessarily involves acceptance that domestic courts in other member states will play a limited role in recognising and enforcing awards.

The Supreme Court agreed with the investors’ position. It held that the ICSID Convention creates a self-contained enforcement regime in which national courts perform a narrowly defined administrative function when registering awards.

Because the courts do not re-examine the underlying dispute, the process does not engage the core concerns that sovereign immunity is intended to protect.

Why the Ruling Matters

For investors pursuing claims against states under bilateral investment treaties, arbitration awards are only meaningful if they can ultimately be enforced.

States sometimes resist payment even after losing arbitration, forcing investors to seek recognition of awards in national courts around the world.

The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that English courts will give effect to the ICSID enforcement framework established by treaty and implemented in domestic legislation.

The ruling therefore reinforces the UK’s position as an important jurisdiction for the enforcement of international arbitration awards.

Separate Opinions

The appeal was heard by a panel consisting of Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt and Lady Simler.

The Court delivered a unanimous judgment dismissing Spain’s appeal.

What Happens Next

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the investors remain entitled to rely on the registered arbitration award in England.

The judgment resolves Spain’s attempt to invoke sovereign immunity to prevent the registration of the ICSID award under UK law.

More broadly, the decision confirms that ICSID arbitration awards can be registered and enforced in English courts and that states party to the ICSID Convention cannot rely on sovereign immunity to block that process.

Case details

Court: Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Date: 4 March 2026
Case: Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l and another v Kingdom of Spain
Neutral citation: [2026] UKSC 9
Docket number: UKSC/2024/0155
Area of law: International arbitration / sovereign immunity
Result: Spain’s appeal dismissed

People Also Ask

What is the ICSID Convention?
The ICSID Convention is an international treaty that establishes a system for resolving disputes between foreign investors and states through arbitration. Awards issued under the Convention are enforceable in all contracting states.

What did the UK Supreme Court decide in Infrastructure Services v Spain?
The Court ruled that Spain could not rely on sovereign immunity to challenge the registration of an ICSID arbitration award in England. The appeal was dismissed and the award remained enforceable.

Why are ICSID arbitration awards important?
ICSID awards allow investors to recover damages when states breach investment treaty obligations. The Convention ensures those awards can be recognised and enforced across member states.

What is sovereign immunity under UK law?
Sovereign immunity is a principle under the State Immunity Act 1978 that generally protects foreign states from being sued in UK courts, subject to certain exceptions.

Why does this ruling matter for international arbitration?
The decision confirms that English courts will recognise and enforce ICSID awards against states that are parties to the Convention, strengthening London’s role in the global arbitration system.

]]> U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Asylum Case Review Standard in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2026/03/supreme-court-asylum-review-standard-urias-orellana-v-bondi/ Thu, 05 Mar 2026 13:50:26 +0000 https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/?p=91972 The U.S. Supreme Court has clarified how federal courts must review immigration agency decisions in asylum cases, ruling in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi  that appellate courts must apply the substantial-evidence standard when evaluating whether the facts in an asylum claim amount to persecution.

The decision, issued on March 4, 2026, resolves a dispute over how courts should assess determinations made by immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) when reviewing asylum applications under U.S. immigration law.

Background Of The Case

The case arose from the asylum application of Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States with his wife and minor child in June 2021.

Urias-Orellana sought asylum after describing threats and violence linked to a criminal figure in El Salvador. According to the record, two of his half-brothers were shot in separate incidents by an individual connected to a local drug trafficker.

He testified that he feared similar harm would be directed at him and his family.

Following the attacks, the family relocated several times within El Salvador. Urias-Orellana later reported additional threats and an assault before ultimately leaving the country and traveling to the United States.

After arriving in the United States without authorization, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. Urias-Orellana subsequently applied for asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Immigration Court Proceedings

An Immigration Judge determined that Urias-Orellana’s testimony was credible but concluded that the incidents described did not rise to the level of “past persecution” required for asylum under U.S. law.

The judge also found that Urias-Orellana had not demonstrated that internal relocation within El Salvador was unreasonable and had not shown that he was likely to face torture if returned to the country.

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the decision, agreeing that the threats and assault described did not meet the legal threshold for persecution and that Urias-Orellana had failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution.

First Circuit Review And Supreme Court Decision

Urias-Orellana petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for review of the agency’s decision.

In Urias-Orellana v. Garland, the First Circuit concluded that substantial evidence supported the immigration authorities’ findings.

The court held that the threats and assault described in the record did not compel a finding of persecution and agreed that internal relocation within El Salvador remained possible. The court therefore denied the petition for review.

The U.S. Supreme Court later granted certiorari to resolve a dispute over the standard of judicial review applied when courts assess whether facts found by immigration authorities amount to persecution.

In asylum proceedings, immigration judges act as the primary fact-finders, while federal courts review agency decisions under standards defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The case raised the question of whether determining that certain conduct constitutes persecution should be treated primarily as a legal question or a factual determination entitled to deference.

An amicus brief submitted by former immigration judges argued that determining whether past events qualify as persecution involves applying legal standards to established facts and therefore should receive non-deferential review by appellate courts.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that federal courts reviewing asylum decisions must apply the substantial-evidence standard when assessing whether the facts in the record constitute persecution.

Under that standard, courts must uphold the agency’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Applying that framework, the Court affirmed the judgment of the First Circuit.

Legal Framework And Significance Of The Decision

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, asylum may be granted to individuals who qualify as refugees. A refugee is defined as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to their home country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

Applicants may establish eligibility by demonstrating past persecution or by showing a well-founded fear of future persecution.

A finding of past persecution can create a presumption of future persecution, shifting the burden to the government to show that the applicant could safely relocate within the country or that conditions there have materially changed.

The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies how federal courts should evaluate one of the central determinations in asylum law: whether the experiences described by an applicant legally qualify as persecution.

By confirming that the substantial-evidence standard governs judicial review of this determination, the Court reinforced the significant role immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) play in evaluating asylum claims and limited the circumstances in which federal appellate courts may overturn those findings.

Case Timeline

March 2022 – Immigration Judge denies asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

December 7, 2023 – Board of Immigration Appeals affirms the decision.

November 14, 2024 – First Circuit denies petition for review.

December 1, 2025 – Supreme Court hears oral argument.

March 4, 2026 – Supreme Court issues decision in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi.

]]>