Arjmand v. DHS, No. 12-71748 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, an American citizen born in Iran, petitioned for review of a determination letter issued by DHS, seeking disclosure of his watchlist status, a meaningful opportunity to contest inclusion on any watchlist, and removal from all government watchlists. The watchlist at issue is the Consolidated Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). In Latif v. Holder, the court held that 49 U.S.C. 46110 did not grant circuit courts jurisdiction over broad constitutional claims - such as petitioner's - that seek removal from the TSDB. The court reaffirmed its holding in Latif and clarified that it is applicable even where a traveler's claims are brought as a challenge to a DHS Travel Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) determination letter. Accordingly, the court transferred to the district court where the jurisdictional defects that prevented the court from hearing petitioner's claims would not exist.
Court Description: Watch List / Appellate Jurisdiction. The panel held that this court lacked jurisdiction over a petition seeking review of a determination letter issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and transferred the petition to the United States District Court for the Central District of California for further proceedings. The petitioner sought disclosure of his watchlist status, a meaningful opportunity to contest inclusion on any watchlist, and removal from all government watchlists. The watchlist at issue is the federal Consolidated Terrorist Screening Database, which is maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”), and complaints related to the Database are processed through the Department of Homeland Security Traveler Redress Inquiry Program. The panel held that it lacked original jurisdiction over petitioner’s claims because 49 U.S.C. § 46110 did not grant circuit courts jurisdiction to review TSC orders, and therefore did not grant jurisdiction over claims seeking removal from the Database. The panel also held that although this court lacked original jurisdiction, these jurisdictional defects would not exist in a district court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.