Lingad

MEMORANDUM ****

Our review of a habeas petition challenging an extradition order is limited to considering whether: (1) the extradition court lacked jurisdiction to conduct extradition proceedings or lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner, (2) the relevant treaty was in full force and effect, (3) the petitioner’s alleged crime fell within the terms of the treaty, and (4) there was competent legal evidence to support the magistrate judge’s finding of extraditability. See Manta v. Chertoff, 518 F.3d 1134, 1140 (9th Cir.2008). Lingad does not challenge the extradition order on any of these grounds, and therefore the district court did not err in denying her habeas petition.

To the extent a district court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to correct procedural errors in extradition proceedings that amount to a denial of due process, compare Collins v. Miller, 252 U.S. 364, 369 , 40 S.Ct. 347 , 64 L.Ed. 616 (1920), with Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 817 (9th Cir.1986), we conclude that the district court did not err in rejecting *74 Lingad’s argument that she was deprived of due process because “she had a right to an expectation of finality with respect to the particular…