Opinion ID: 775317
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Commercial Activities Exception

Text: 53 Finally, Robinson urges us in the alternative to sustain jurisdiction under the commercial activities exception to the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2). He did not raise this argument in the district court, and the court did not consider it. We likewise decline to consider it on appeal because we find no manifest injustice sufficient to justify departure from the general rule... that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below. Singleton, 428 U.S. at 120; see also 767 Third Ave. Assocs., 218 F.3d at 162 (finding, where plaintiffs invoked the FSIA for the first time on appeal, no reason to depart from the settled principle that, absent manifest injustice, appellate courts do not pass on an issue not raised in the trial court). 54 The only reason Robinson offers for failure to raise the commercial activities exception in the district court is that his attorneys neglected the filing deadline and therefore were required to brief the issues on an expedited basis. There is no manifest injustice here. We decline to address this argument in the first instance on appeal.