## Facts

- Dr. Rahinah Ibrahim, a Malaysian citizen studying in the United States on a student visa, was stopped at San Francisco International Airport in January 2005 when she attempted to fly to Hawaii because her name appeared on the federal no-fly list.
- She was handcuffed, detained, and questioned, then released; she was permitted to travel the following day.
- The court found her watchlisting resulted from an FBI agent’s administrative mistake on a nomination form, causing her to be nominated to multiple screening databases, including the no-fly list and IBIS.
- While Ibrahim later was in Malaysia, her U.S. student visa was revoked, preventing her return to complete her Ph.D. studies.
- During the litigation, the government conceded Ibrahim did not pose, and had not posed, a threat of terrorism or national security.
- After extensive motion practice and appeals on jurisdiction and standing, the case proceeded to a five-day bench trial, resulting in findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order granting limited relief.

## Issues

1. Whether Ibrahim’s erroneous placement on the no-fly list and related watchlists violated procedural due process.
2. Whether a noncitizen located outside the United States had standing to seek prospective relief to correct watchlist status and records.
3. What relief, if any, was appropriate given asserted national-security interests and the secrecy of watchlisting programs.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for Ibrahim on limited grounds after a bench trial.
- It found Ibrahim had standing to challenge her watchlisting and to seek prospective relief addressing ongoing consequences of the erroneous listing.
- It found her placement on the no-fly list and related watchlists was the product of an administrative error and lacked a valid basis.
- It held that the procedures, as applied to Ibrahim, failed to provide constitutionally adequate process and allowed an acknowledged error to persist with significant consequences.
- It granted targeted relief requiring correction of relevant government records and removal of the erroneous no-fly/watchlist designation as applicable.
- It denied broader relief, including orders effectively requiring visa issuance or restructuring the watchlisting system.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing may exist for prospective relief when an erroneous watchlist designation creates ongoing and redressable injuries, including impaired ability to travel and reputational harm.
- Procedural due process requires meaningful safeguards against erroneous deprivation when government action substantially burdens protected interests; secret determinations with no effective mechanism to correct proven error can violate due process as applied.
- Courts may review and remedy individual watchlisting errors while still giving weight to national-security concerns and limiting relief to what is necessary to correct the unlawful action.
- Judicial relief may be cabined to record correction and removal from improper lists, and does not ordinarily extend to compelling discretionary immigration or consular decisions.

## Conclusion

After finding that an FBI administrative mistake caused Ibrahim’s no-fly and related watchlist designations, and that the resulting secrecy and lack of effective correction denied her adequate process, the court ordered targeted removal and record correction but declined to grant sweeping systemic remedies or compel visa-related outcomes.


Ibrahim v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 62 F. Supp. 3d 909 (N.D. Cal. 2014)