Ardila Olivares v. Transp. Sec. Admin. - 422 U.S. App. D.C. 107, 819 F.3d 454 (2016)

Rule:

If the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), on behalf of the Secretary of Homeland Security, determines that an alien presents a risk to aviation or national security, then flight instructors, pilot schools, and aviation training centers are prohibited from giving training to that alien on specified large, U.S.-registered aircraft. 49 U.S.C.S. 44939(a). As a consequence, an alien who has been denied clearance by TSA is ineligible to be certified by the Federal Aviation Administration to fly these U.S.-registered aircraft.

Facts:

Petitioner Alberto Ardila Olivares, a foreign alien from Venezuela, applied to attend a Federal Aviation Administration – a certified flight school in France to obtain a pilot certification to fly large, U.S.-registered aircraft. After conducting a background check, the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") determined that Petitioner was a risk to aviation and national security and denied his application for training. Petitioner appealed, invoking the court's jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a), and asserting causes of action under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(e), 702, 704, 706(2). According to petitioner, TSA failed to satisfy the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) when it initially rejected his application for training because the agency gave no "grounds for denial."

Issue:

1. Did TSA fail to satisfy the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 555(e), thereby warranting the remand of the case?
2. Did TSA act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying petitioner’s application?

Answer:

1) Yes, but remand was not warranted. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that TSA did not initially satisfy the requirements of 5 U.S.C.S. § 555(e) that it explain the grounds for its denial of petitioner’s application to attend an FAA-certified flight school. However, the Court averred that remand was not necessary because internal agency materials and TSA official's sworn declaration showed that the decision was based on findings that petitioner was willing to consistently disregard the law and to use an aircraft for criminal activity. According to the Court, the TSA's action was not arbitrary or capricious, as petitioner’s record as a whole raised concerns that he might use his flight training to advance the interests of a criminal enterprise.