Ghayoori v. Sultanate of Oman

Ghayoori · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · January 23, 2026 · No. Civil Action No. 24-3639 (JMC)

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Ramin Ghayoori’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his claims against the Sultanate of Oman for lack of jurisdiction. The court also denied leave to amend, concluding that the proposed amended complaint would remain barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act because no applicable exception, including the noncommercial-tort or implied-waiver exceptions, was adequately alleged. The court further held that an evidentiary hearing was not required under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e).

Holdings

  1. The FSIA is the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in federal court, so the jurisdictional analysis properly focused on whether a statutory FSIA exception applied.
  2. The FSIA's noncommercial-tort exception does not apply unless the entire tort, including both the injury and the act precipitating the injury, occurred in the United States.
  3. The Court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e); that provision applies when a court enters a judgment by default and requires satisfactory evidence, but does not mandate a pre-decision evidentiary hearing.
  4. Leave to amend was properly denied as futile because the proposed amended complaint would still be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
  5. The proposed amended complaint did not establish implied waiver under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1) because it did not allege any of the recognized circumstances for implied waiver.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Court should reconsider its prior dismissal for lack of jurisdiction based on alleged failures to consider the Vienna Convention, Convention Against Torture, FSIA waiver, the location of the tortious act, or the need for an evidentiary hearing.
  2. Whether leave to amend should be granted when the proposed amended complaint would remain outside the FSIA exceptions and therefore would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
  3. Whether invocation of federal-question jurisdiction independently permits jurisdiction over claims against Oman absent an applicable FSIA exception.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (7)

  • Doe v. Fed. Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 851 F.3d 7, 9–10 (D.C. Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Monsalvo v. Bondi, 604 U.S. 712, 743 (2025) (Thomas, J., dissenting)(followed)
  • TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 434 n.6 (2021)(followed)
  • Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471, 480 (D.C. Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 481 F. Supp. 3d 1, 5–6 (D.D.C. 2020)(followed)
  • TIG Ins. v. Republic of Argentina, 110 F.4th 221, 236 (D.C. Cir. 2024)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…