Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): set forth in the statute are met: the plaintiff must be “(1) an alien, (2) suing for a tort, which was (3) committed in violation of international law.” See Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1246 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam). However, the explicit statutory requirements are not the only requirements for jurisdiction. Some of the numerous additional jurisdictional predicates include, for example, whether liability on the part of the defendant and the plaintiffs’ theory therefor are cognizable. See Mastafa v. Chevron Corp., 770 F.3d 170, 179-80 (2d Cir.2014). Here, such initial prerequisites appear to be satisfied: Plaintiffs are citizens of Colombia bringing a civil suit for the extrajudicial killings of their decedents. See Romero, 552 F.3d at 1316 (<HOLDING>). Further, Plaintiffs may pursue their claims 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it would be difficult to contend that violations of international human rights are in the public interest (B) holding that under  1983 violations of constitutional rights are actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury (C) recognizing the possibility that 28 usc  1331 supplies jurisdiction for violations of international law but not reaching the ultimate merits of the issue (D) recognizing that claims for extrajudicial killings are actionable international law violations under the ats (E) holding that atca establishes cause of action for violations of international law but requiring the district court to perform a traditional choiceoflaw analysis to determine whether international law law of forum state or law of state where events occurred should provide substantive law in such an action
Output (English): holding that under  1983 violations of constitutional rights are actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury