International Prisoner Transfer Treaty Program

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

The International Prisoner Transfer Program allows a foreign national serving a sentence in a United States prison to apply to serve the remainder of that sentence in their home country — and allows an American serving a sentence abroad to apply to come home. It runs on 18 U.S.C. §§ 4100–4115, on bilateral treaties and two multilateral conventions, on the regulations at 28 C.F.R. part 527, and on the Bureau of Prisons’ implementing policy, Program Statement 5140.42, Transfer of Offenders To or From Foreign Countries. The statute and the treaties are the law; the regulations bind the Bureau; the Program Statement is the Bureau’s own internal instruction for applying them, and it is not itself law — but it is what institution staff use, so it is what determines how a request is handled.

Three things are true of every transfer and they should be said before anything else. A treaty must exist between the United States and the country in question. Three parties must consent — the sentencing country, the receiving country, and the prisoner. And the prisoner’s consent, once verified before a judge, is irrevocable. Section 4100 puts it plainly: “Once an offender’s consent to transfer has been verified by a verifying officer, that consent shall be irrevocable.”

Transfer is discretionary. The Bureau’s own policy states the position exactly: “Although the prisoner does not have a right to transfer, a prisoner who is a citizen or national from a country having a transfer relationship with the United States and who has satisfied the applicable statutory and treaty requirements does have the right to apply and to be considered for transfer” (PS 5140.42 at p. 5). Nobody can tell you a transfer will be approved. What this page sets out is what the requirements actually are, what makes a person ineligible, how long each stage takes, and what happens to the sentence on the other side.

---

What the International Prisoner Transfer Program is

Congress created the program in December 1977, authorizing the United States to participate in international prisoner transfers and setting the requirements. The first transfer treaty was with Mexico, in 1977. Since then the United States has entered into 11 additional bilateral transfer agreements and two multilateral transfer conventions, giving it transfer relationships with almost 80 countries (PS 5140.42 at p. 4).

The decision is not the Bureau of Prisons’. Authority to find a transfer appropriate or inappropriate is vested in the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4102 and delegated within the Department of Justice — to the Criminal Division under 28 C.F.R. § 0.64-2, where it is exercised by the Office of Enforcement Operations (OEO) and its International Prisoner Transfer Unit, and to the Bureau under 28 C.F.R. § 0.96b for the custodial and logistical side: receiving custody of transferred offenders, arranging their movement, exchanging certifications and reports with foreign governments, and carrying out the transferred sentence.

So the Bureau’s role is real but bounded. PS 5140.42 lists it: telling foreign national prisoners the program exists and how to apply; determining whether basic eligibility requirements are met; providing and accepting the Transfer Inquiry form; preparing application packets and forwarding them to Central Office; collecting and providing information about the prisoner and the sentence to the receiving country; and assisting with transportation and escorts (PS 5140.42 at p. 4). The Bureau does not decide. The Department of Justice does, and then the other country does.

The Bureau’s regulations are at 28 C.F.R. §§ 527.40–527.49, and PS 5140.42 reproduces them verbatim. Our policy explainer sits at international prisoner transfer.

How the treaty transfer program works: the six requirements

The enabling legislation sets out the basic requirements for every transfer. PS 5140.42 lists them at p. 5, and 18 U.S.C. § 4100 supplies the statutory text.

#	Requirement	Statutory basis
1	A transfer treaty must be in force between the United States and the offender’s country	“The provisions of this chapter relating to the transfer of offenders shall be applicable only when a treaty providing for such a transfer is in force” — § 4100(a)
2	The offender must be a citizen or national of the receiving country	“An offender may be transferred from the United States pursuant to this chapter only to a country of which the offender is a citizen or national” — § 4100(b)
3	All three must consent — the offender, the sentencing country, and the receiving country	“An offender may be transferred to or from the United States only with the offender’s consent” — § 4100(b); both governments must approve — PS 5140.42 at p. 5
4	Dual criminality — the conduct must also be a crime in the receiving country	“…and only if the offense for which the offender was sentenced satisfies the requirement of double criminality as defined in this chapter” — § 4100(b)
5	Consent must be verified at a consent verification hearing before a judge	18 U.S.C. § 4107
6	No appeal or collateral attack may be pending on the conviction or sentence	“An offender shall not be transferred to or from the United States if a proceeding by way of appeal or of collateral attack upon the conviction or sentence be pending” — § 4100(c)

Requirement six is the one that most often surprises people, and it deserves emphasis because it is a genuine strategic choice. A pending direct appeal or a pending § 2255 motion makes a person ineligible to transfer. PS 5140.42 says so twice: “OEO cannot approve a transfer if the inmate has a pending appeal or a collateral attack on his/her conviction or sentence. The judgment must be final. The applicant should not apply for transfer until the appeal process or collateral attack has concluded” (PS 5140.42 at p. 17). The bar is not permanent — “once the appeal or collateral attack has been decided, the inmate is eligible to apply for transfer” — but it means a person cannot pursue both routes at once and must decide which comes first.

That is a decision worth taking advice on, because the two paths lead to different places. A successful appeal or § 2255 motion attacks the conviction or the sentence itself. A treaty transfer leaves the conviction intact and changes where and under whose law the sentence is served — and once transferred, § 4107 requires the person to have been told and to have agreed that “only the appropriate courts in the United States may modify or set aside the conviction or sentence, and any proceedings seeking such action may only be brought in such courts.” See direct appeal vs § 2255 and post-conviction deadlines.

Different groups of eligible prisoners

Four distinct groups can use this program, and the route differs for each.

Foreign nationals in Bureau of Prisons custody. The core group. Notification happens at Admission and Orientation, the person signs a Transfer Inquiry form (BP-A0297) indicating interest or no interest, and the question is readdressed at every subsequent program review. The Bureau requires the interest status to be recorded in its system “before or upon completion of Initial Classification” (PS 5140.42 at pp. 7–8, 14). See admission and orientation and unit team and program review.

Americans imprisoned abroad. The Bureau is responsible for “sending escorts to foreign countries to retrieve American national prisoners who have been approved for transfer to the United States and who have had their consent verified at the consent verification hearing specified in 18 U.S.C. § 4108,” and for coordinating with the United States Parole Commission on how the sentence will be administered (PS 5140.42 at p. 18). Under § 4100(b), “only an offender who is a citizen or national of the United States may be transferred to the United States.”

State prisoners. People serving state sentences are eligible, and so are state prisoners boarded in Bureau facilities. “State prisoners in Bureau custody interested in this program are advised to direct their requests to the authorities in their state of sentencing. The state authorities process the request, make a transfer determination, and refer the application to OEO for its final determination” (PS 5140.42 at p. 5). Where a state prisoner is approved, the Bureau may assume custody purely to facilitate the transfer, and “the state is not required to contract for the placement of the prisoner in federal custody, nor to reimburse the United States for the cost of confinement” (28 C.F.R. § 527.47; PS 5140.42 at pp. 13–14).

Holdovers. The program’s procedures “do not apply to pretrial inmates or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees; the procedures do apply, however, to holdover inmates who otherwise meet the eligibility criteria” (PS 5140.42 at p. 2).

A person with dual citizenship “is eligible to apply to any treaty nation of which he/she is a citizen/national,” with the citizenship code in the Bureau’s system reflecting the country applied to (PS 5140.42 at p. 15).

What makes someone ineligible

This is where most applications end, and the criteria are specific enough to check against a file. PS 5140.42 divides them between regulatory limitations at 28 C.F.R. § 527.42 and the case-management screening codes at pp. 14–16.

Ground	Detail
No treaty relationship	No treaty with the person’s country. Staff must still explain the program at Admission and Orientation and record that “no current treaty exists between the United States and the foreign country”
Pending appeal or collateral attack	Ineligible until the judgment is final; the person becomes eligible once it is decided
No dual criminality	Conduct not recognized as a criminal offense in the receiving country. OEO decides this, not the institution
Less than 6 months left to serve	Ineligible at the time of request. Hong Kong and Thailand require 12 months. The Council of Europe Convention and the Hong Kong treaty allow waiver “if exceptional circumstances exist” — described in the policy as “very rare,” usually a life-threatening illness where the person may die before completing the sentence
Mexican nationals: immigration offenses	A Mexican citizen or national serving a sentence for an immigration offense is ineligible, unless serving for multiple offenses and the immigration portion has already been served. The policy names 8 U.S.C. §§ 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327 and 1328. “This limitation only applies to Mexican citizens or nationals and should not be applied to transfer applicants from other countries”
Mexican nationals: U.S. domiciliaries	A Mexican national who has become a domiciliary of the United States. Domicile “is a complex determination and is made by OEO”
Mexico: life or indeterminate sentences	Ineligible for transfer to Mexico
Military offenses	Canada, France, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Palau, Panama, Peru, Thailand and Turkey exclude those committed for a purely military offense such as desertion; Bolivia also excludes an ordinary criminal offense tried by court martial. A person may still apply if the country is a Council of Europe Convention signatory — subject to that country electing to proceed under its bilateral treaty instead
Death sentences	Bolivia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Panama, Peru and Turkey exclude those sentenced to death
Civil contempt	A person in custody for civil contempt may be considered “once the contempt commitment is purged, served, or otherwise terminated by judicial authority”
Committed fines	Outstanding fines and unpaid restitution do not bar an application. But a narrow class — offenses committed before November 1, 1987 with a “committed fine” imposed — is ineligible until the fine is paid or the imposing court gives permission. The Warden may ask the court for that permission. Committed fines are distinct from ordinary post-1987 fines

Source: PS 5140.42 at pp. 6–7 and 14–16; 28 C.F.R. § 527.42. The six-month rule was amended by change notice CN-1, dated April 9, 2019, which removed France from the 12-month list — French nationals now qualify with six months or more remaining (PS 5140.42 at p. 1).

Two clarifications the policy makes and readers often get backwards.

Detainers and pending charges do not bar an application. “Detainers or pending charges do not preclude an inmate from applying for treaty transfer. However, the inmate should be advised to resolve any detainer or pending charge before applying, as he/she may be considered unsuitable until the detainer is removed or the pending charge is resolved” (PS 5140.42 at p. 16). And: “Detainers lodged by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have no impact on the eligibility of a prisoner applying for transfer.” See detainers and the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.

Financial obligations do not bar an application either, outside the pre-1987 committed-fine category — though Financial Responsibility Program status is reported to Central Office in the application packet. See inmate financial responsibility program and restitution.

Which countries participate

The United States has transfer relationships with almost 80 countries, built from 12 bilateral treaties — Mexico first, in 1977, then eleven more — and two multilateral conventions, the principal one being the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, to which many non-European states have acceded (PS 5140.42 at p. 4).

There is no single fixed list, because relationships are added and the mechanics differ by instrument. What matters practically is where to find the current list, and the Bureau names three places (PS 5140.42 at p. 6):

• The institution law library — inmates may access the list of participating countries there. See the prison law library.
• TRULINCS, the inmate computer and email system — see CorrLinks and TRULINCS.
• The Department of Justice’s International Prisoner Transfer Unit website, which the policy identifies as the public source.

Access in the law library and on TRULINCS was added by change notice CN-1 in April 2019; before then the list was only on the Bureau’s internal system. That is a small change with a real consequence: a person inside can now check their own country’s status without going through staff.

We do not publish a country list on this page. Treaty relationships change, and a stale list on a law firm’s website is worse than a pointer to the current one. Ask the unit team to print the current list, or check it on TRULINCS.

The country matters beyond eligibility, because the receiving country administers the sentence under its own law. Section 4107 requires the verifying judge to confirm the person understands that “the sentence shall be carried out according to the laws of the country to which he is to be transferred and that those laws are subject to change.” Release rules, parole eligibility, credit for time served, and conditions of confinement will be that country’s, not the United States’. That is the whole point of the program, and it is also its principal risk.

How the Bureau evaluates and routes a request

The stages are fixed and each has its own clock. These are the Bureau’s own timeframes.

Stage	Who acts	Timeframe
1. Notification	Institution staff, at Admission and Orientation and each program review	Interest status recorded before or upon completion of Initial Classification
2. Transfer Inquiry (BP-A0297)	The person signs it; the Unit Manager reviews and signs	—
3. Application packet assembled and sent to Central Office	Warden signs the covering memorandum; unit team assembles	Within 60 calendar days of the initial request
4. Central Office forwards to OEO	Correctional Programs Branch	Within 10 working days of receipt in Central Office
5. OEO investigation and processing	Department of Justice	May take up to 12 months, depending on the responsiveness of the foreign government
6. United States decision	Department of Justice / OEO	Approval or denial, by letter to the person and the treaty nation
7. Treaty nation decision	The receiving country	The country is asked whether it consents; the person is informed of the determination
8. Consent verification hearing	Arranged by OEO, before a judge	Information is sent to the person’s attorney, “usually a Federal Public Defender”
9. Transfer to departure institution and retrieval	Bureau of Prisons	The treaty nation is instructed to contact the Bureau to arrange escorts

Source: PS 5140.42 at pp. 9–12; 28 C.F.R. §§ 527.44–527.46.

The initial application packet must contain: a memorandum signed by the Warden with the person’s name, register number, country of citizenship, Financial Responsibility Program status and any medical or mental-health issues; the Transfer Inquiry (BP-A0297); an Authorization to Release Confidential Information (BP-A0301); a U.S. Case Summary (BP-A0964); the presentence or post-sentence investigation report for the current offense; an FBI fingerprint card with a current photograph; the current sentence computation; the current visiting and contact list and emergency contact information; certified copies of the judgment in a criminal case including any amended orders; and proof of citizenship or nationality if available — a birth certificate or valid passport (PS 5140.42 at pp. 9–10).

The policy adds a useful instruction about the birth certificate: “although individual countries may require a copy of a birth certificate before approving a transfer, the referral to Central Office should not be delayed due to the absence of a birth certificate. It is ultimately the responsibility of the home country to confirm the transfer applicant is a citizen or national.”

Two practical points from the same pages. First, the unit team is directed to advise the person to contact the nearest consular office of their home country, because foreign officials “normally have documents for the inmate to complete and return to the local consulate so that the consular office can begin verification of citizenship or nationality and facilitate the processing.” Second, foreign officials may request to visit the person at the institution. Both mean the home country’s consulate is an active participant, not a bystander, and contacting it early is one of the few things a person can do to move their own file.

Institution staff may ask the Correctional Programs Branch for a status report, “but should not contact OEO, unless advised to do so by Central Office staff.”

The consent verification hearing

If the Department of Justice approves and the treaty nation consents, OEO arranges a consent verification hearing. This is a judicial proceeding, and 18 U.S.C. § 4107 governs it.

The hearing is conducted by “a United States magistrate judge or a judge as defined in section 451 of title 28,” who must verify that the consent “is voluntary and with full knowledge of the consequences.” The verifying officer must ask whether the person understands and agrees to four conditions:

1. Only United States courts may modify or set aside the conviction or sentence, and any proceeding seeking that “may only be brought in such courts.”
2. The sentence will be carried out according to the laws of the receiving country, “and that those laws are subject to change.”
3. If a court in the receiving country finds the transfer was not accomplished in accordance with the treaty or that country’s laws, the person may be returned to the United States to complete the sentence if the United States requests it.
4. “His consent to transfer, once verified by the verifying officer, is irrevocable.”

The statute also builds in counsel protections. The verifying officer “shall advise the offender of his right to consult with counsel as provided by this chapter,” and “if the offender wishes to consult with counsel before giving his consent, he shall be advised that the proceedings will be continued until he has had an opportunity to consult with counsel.” The officer must make inquiries sufficient to determine that consent “is voluntary and not the result of any promises, threats, or other improper inducements.” The proceedings are “taken down by a reporter or recorded by suitable sound recording equipment.”

For an American being transferred to the United States, the equivalent hearing happens abroad, before a United States Magistrate Judge, and the Bureau’s escorts “must ensure that the inmate has given his/her consent at the hearing before escorting him/her back to the United States” (PS 5140.42 at p. 19).

Applied Insight — Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney: The consent hearing is the last moment at which a decision can be reversed, and the statute is unambiguous that after it, it cannot. The four conditions the judge must read are not formalities. Condition two — that the receiving country’s law governs, and that its law may change — is the one that carries the real consequence, because release eligibility, sentence credits and conditions of confinement will all be determined somewhere else, under rules that are not fixed. The right time to work through those consequences with counsel is before the hearing, and the statute expressly guarantees a continuance to make that possible.

Americans coming home: how the sentence is administered

This is the question every American serving time abroad asks, and it has a precise statutory answer that almost no page states.

When someone is transferred into the United States, the United States Parole Commission — not the Bureau of Prisons, and not a district court — determines the release date and the terms of supervision. 18 U.S.C. § 4106A provides that the Commission “shall, without unnecessary delay, determine a release date and a period and conditions of supervised release for an offender transferred to the United States to serve a sentence of imprisonment, as though the offender were convicted in a United States district court of a similar offense.”

Four features of that determination matter:

• The Guidelines are in play. The Commission must consider “any recommendation of the United States Probation Service, including any recommendation as to the applicable guideline range,” and “any documents provided by the transferring country.”
• The foreign sentence is a ceiling. “The combined periods of imprisonment and supervised release that result from such determination shall not exceed the term of imprisonment imposed by the foreign court on that offender.”
• The determination is appealable. It “may be appealed to the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the offender is imprisoned at the time of the determination,” and “notice of appeal must be filed not later than 45 days after receipt of notice of such determination.” The court of appeals decides it “in accordance with section 3742 of this title as though the determination appealed had been a sentence imposed by a United States district court.”
• It applies only to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987.

That 45-day appeal window is a genuine deadline with a genuine remedy behind it, reviewed under the same standard as a federal sentence. It is easy to miss, and missing it forecloses review of a determination that sets an actual release date. If you or a family member has received a Parole Commission determination after a transfer into the United States, that is the moment to speak to a federal appellate attorney.

The mechanics on arrival are set out in PS 5140.42 at pp. 19–20. The Designation and Sentence Computation Center prepares the sentence computation, “in most instances before his/her arrival in the United States” — see Grand Prairie / DSCC. If the computation shows the person is within six months of release, institution staff notify the Parole Commission promptly. If it shows immediate release is due, release procedures follow, but only after medical clearance, an NCIC report, and an FBI fingerprint check. In cases not involving release within six months, a United States Probation Officer is asked to prepare a Post-Sentence Report, and the probation officer ordinarily interviews the person.

Also traveling with the file, per § 4100(d): if the sentencing country later grants “a pardon, commutation, or amnesty, or that there has been an ameliorating modification or a revocation of the sentence,” the United States “shall give the offender the benefit of the action taken by the sentencing country.”

Denial and reapplication

Denials are communicated by letter from OEO, which “provides the reasons for denial in a letter sent to the inmate and his/her home country” (PS 5140.42 at p. 11).

If the United States denies the transfer, the person “may normally reapply for transfer two years from the date of denial,” measured from the date on the OEO denial letter and recorded in the Bureau’s system. The denial letter informs the person of the right to reapply in two years “if, at the time of the letter, at least two years remain on the sentence,” and tells them that a substantial change in circumstances allows an application for reconsideration sooner. Exceptions to the two-year wait exist where “temporary conditions preventing transfers have been satisfied” — the policy’s examples are a pending appeal that has been resolved, a person needed to testify who has done so, and a financial obligation that has been satisfied.

Reapplication does not require a full new packet, because OEO keeps the original materials. Institution staff submit, again within 60 calendar days of the reapplication: a memorandum giving the date of the previous denial and any new information — disciplinary action, medical or mental-health issues, sentence changes, Financial Responsibility Program status, family location, updated emergency contact; a new Transfer Inquiry; a current visiting and phone list; any new or amended sentencing documents; an OEO reapplication questionnaire completed by the person; and a progress report if available. Signature authority for the reapplication memorandum is delegated to the Unit Manager rather than the Warden (PS 5140.42 at p. 11). See progress reports.

If the foreign country denies the transfer, the route is different and this catches people out. A person “approved for transfer by the United States but denied treaty transfer to his/her country of citizenship or nationality by the treaty nation (foreign country) may not reapply through the Bureau and must address the denial directly with the treaty nation, since the United States has already approved the transfer” (PS 5140.42 at p. 10). The consulate, not the case manager, is the correct channel.

Prisoner transfer is not extradition

These two are constantly confused, and the confusion matters because they run in opposite directions.

Extradition is the surrender of a person to a country so that they can be prosecuted or made to serve a sentence there. It is generally initiated by a government, against a person who does not want to go.

Prisoner transfer under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4100–4115 moves a person who has already been convicted and sentenced, at their own request, to serve the remainder of that sentence in their home country. It cannot happen without the person’s consent — § 4100(b) says so — and where the person is under eighteen, or the verifying officer finds them “mentally incompetent or otherwise incapable of knowingly and voluntarily consenting,” the transfer cannot proceed without the consent of “a parent or guardian, guardian ad litem, or an appropriate court of the sentencing country.”

A country that has a prisoner transfer treaty with the United States may or may not have an extradition treaty with it, and the two lists are not the same. If you are researching prisoner transfer, the extradition question is a different subject with different instruments, and material about one will not answer questions about the other.

Where people get stuck with international prisoner transfer

Applying while an appeal or § 2255 is pending. Ineligible. The judgment must be final. This is the single most common reason an otherwise strong application goes nowhere, and it is entirely avoidable with sequencing.

Running out the six-month clock. Fewer than six months left to serve at the time of request makes a person ineligible — twelve months for Hong Kong and Thailand. Because OEO processing “may take up to 12 months,” an application filed close to the line can be overtaken by its own timetable.

Assuming the Bureau decides. It does not. The Bureau screens, packages and transports; the Department of Justice decides for the United States; and the receiving country decides for itself. Complaints to the institution about the pace of an OEO review have nowhere to go — institution staff are told to contact the Correctional Programs Branch and expressly told not to contact OEO themselves.

Not involving the consulate. The policy directs unit staff to advise the person to contact their nearest consular office, and consular officials may interview them before the Department of Justice decides and again after approval. Citizenship verification is the home country’s job, and it is a common bottleneck.

Treating consent as reversible. It is not. Both § 4100 and § 4107 say so in terms.

Frequently Asked Questions About International Prisoner Transfers

Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026