United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 15, 2018 Decided December 7, 2018 No. 17-1213 NADIA PINKOVITSCH MATAR, PETITIONER v. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, RESPONDENT On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Transportation Security Administration L. Marc Zell argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner. Brad Hinshelwood, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Sharon Swingle, Attorney. Nitin Shah, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, entered an appearance. Before: H ENDERSON and SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge EDWARDS. 2 EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge: In 2013, before boarding a flight from Canada to the United States, Nadia Pinkovitsch Matar (“Petitioner”) was informed by a Canadian border official that she was on a United States watch list and was advised not to board her flight. Four years later, Petitioner, who is a dual citizen of Israel and Belgium, submitted a petition to the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”). She sought removal from the watch list or an explanation for her presence on it. Several months later, TSA mailed a final disposition to Petitioner at her home in Israel. See TSA Order of July 28, 2017 (“Order”), reprinted in Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 40–41. The Order stated that TSA would “neither confirm nor deny any information about [Petitioner] which may be within federal watchlists or reveal any law enforcement sensitive information.” Id. at 40. Petitioner then petitioned this court, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46110, for review of the Order. Petitioner contends that TSA’s disposition of her inquiry violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) because the agency failed to explain whether or why she was still on a watch list. Petitioner’s petition for review comes too late. Section 46110(a) provides that a petition for review of a disputed order must be filed not later than 60 days after the order is issued unless there are reasonable grounds for not filing by the 60th day. Petitioner’s petition was filed after the statutory deadline and there are no “reasonable grounds” justifying her untimely filing. We therefore deny the petition for review. I. BACKGROUND TSA is tasked with ensuring safety in commercial airline travel. See 49 U.S.C. § 114(d). In furtherance of that directive, TSA maintains two watch lists as part of the Secure Flight Program: a “No Fly” list and a “Selectee” list. See id. 3 § 44903(j)(2)(A), (C)(i)–(ii). Individuals on the No Fly list are prohibited from boarding airplanes that are traveling to the United States, while individuals on the Selectee list are subject to more rigorous screening. “If an individual believes he or she has been improperly or unfairly delayed or prohibited from boarding an aircraft . . . as a result of [TSA’s] Secure Flight program,” 49 C.F.R. § 1560.205(a), the individual may submit a petition to the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (“TRIP”), id. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals