## Facts

- Alberto Ignacio Ardila Olivares, a Venezuelan national, applied in 2014 to attend an FAA-certified flight school in France to obtain certification to fly large, U.S.-registered aircraft.
- Federal law requires TSA to vet foreign nationals seeking certain training; if TSA determines the applicant poses an aviation or national-security risk, training providers are barred from providing training on covered aircraft.
- After a background investigation, TSA determined Olivares posed a risk and denied the application.
- TSA’s initial notice was an email stating only that TSA was “unable to determine” he did not pose a threat, without stating specific grounds.
- In the court proceeding, TSA submitted internal agency materials reflecting the contemporaneous investigation and a sworn declaration by a TSA official explaining the basis for the denial and the content of the record (including criminal-history and trafficking-related concerns and immigration/residence information).

## Issues

1. Whether TSA violated APA § 555(e) by failing to provide a brief statement of the grounds for denying the written application.
2. Whether TSA’s denial was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under APA § 706(2)(A).
3. Whether the declaration and internal materials submitted during litigation were impermissible post hoc rationalizations or permissible explanations of the agency’s contemporaneous reasoning.

## Decision

- Petition for review denied.
- The court agreed TSA’s initial email failed to satisfy APA § 555(e)’s requirement to provide a brief statement of grounds for denial.
- The court held the internal materials, as explained by the declaration, provided a clear and reasonable statement of the grounds on which TSA relied and were not impermissible post hoc rationalizations.
- Applying deferential review, the court upheld TSA’s risk determination as not arbitrary or capricious.
- The court declined to remand because the record before the court and the petitioner contained an adequate written explanation and a remand would serve no practical purpose.

## Legal Principles

- APA § 555(e) requires prompt notice of denial of a written application accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for denial.
- Courts may treat litigation-stage declarations and record submissions as permissible explanations when they clarify contemporaneous reasons found in the administrative record rather than supply new justifications.
- Under APA § 706(2)(A), agency action is upheld if supported by a reasoned explanation grounded in the record; review is deferential, especially for predictive judgments in aviation and national-security risk assessment.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit recognized a § 555(e) notice deficiency in TSA’s initial denial email but upheld the denial because contemporaneous internal records and an explanatory declaration provided an adequate statement of grounds, were not post hoc rationalizations, and supported a non-arbitrary security-risk determination without need for remand.


Olivares v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 819 F.3d 454 (D.C. Cir. 2016)