When Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar arrived in Los Angeles in January 2000, they received assistance that now sits at the centre of a long-running case against Saudi Arabia.
Omar al-Bayoumi, a graduate student employed by the Saudi civil aviation agency, met the men in Los Angeles. He helped them find housing in San Diego, assisted with banking and transportation, and linked them to a local support network.
The families of 9/11 victims say Saudi government employees knowingly helped the al-Qaeda hijackers who carried out the attacks. Saudi Arabia has argued that it is shielded from the suit and is seeking to escape a multi-billion-dollar damages claim.
Saudi Arabia appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals after a ruling on 28 August 2025 by US District Judge George B. Daniels, who denied the kingdom’s motion to dismiss.
Daniels held that the kingdom had failed to show that it was shielded from suit under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. He found ‘a high probability as to Bayoumi and Thumairy's roles in the hijackers' plans, and the related role of their employer’.
That ruling marked the first point in the litigation when a court found the evidence sufficient to send Saudi Arabia to trial. It did not set a trial date or resolve the families’ damages claims.
The case began in 2002 on behalf of victims’ relatives, survivors, insurance companies and businesses. Courts dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia multiple times during more than two decades of litigation.
Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act in 2016 over President Barack Obama’s veto, providing a firmer basis for the plaintiffs’ case. Obama vetoed the measure on 23 September 2016, and Congress overrode him five days later. The Saudi litigation was revived in March 2017.
Saudi Arabia immediately appealed Daniels’s August 2025 decision to the Second Circuit. The appeal concerns whether the district court was right to allow the action to continue against the kingdom, rather than whether Saudi Arabia is liable for damages.
Bayoumi’s alleged role is central to that jurisdictional dispute. The FBI concluded in 2017 that he was a Saudi spy, a finding that remained classified until 2022. An FBI report described him as a ‘GIP Cooptee’ reporting to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi ambassador to the United States from 1983 to 2005.
The other official named in Daniels’s finding, Fahad al-Thumairy, was an imam and consular official at the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles, and also served at the King Fahad Mosque in Culver City. FBI records show 67 phone calls between Thumairy and Bayoumi, the last on 2 September 2001, nine days before the attacks.
A witness told the FBI that Thumairy instructed an associate to help the hijackers when they arrived. The State Department revoked Thumairy’s diplomatic visa after the attacks. He was deported when he sought to return to Los Angeles in 2003.
The families are seeking to hold the Saudi government financially responsible for its officials’ alleged assistance. Saudi Arabia faces a potential trial and financial liability if the appeals court leaves Daniels’s jurisdiction ruling in place.
No trial date has been set. The kingdom retains the right to appeal further or pursue a settlement.
Comments (0)