* * * Andrea Vara executed a sworn declaration explaining TSA's grounds for denying Petitioner's application for training. Ms. Vara is employed by [TSA] as the Alien Flight Student Program Manager. She has been responsible for managing TSA's Alien Flight Student Program, which conducts security threat assessments on individuals who are not U.S. citizens or nationals who seek flight instruction or recurrent training from FAA-certified flight training providers. The Vara Declaration makes it clear that Ms. Vara was the Government official who made the determination that Petitioner's application should be denied * * * . The Vara Declaration states: * * *In 2007, Petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois sentenced him to eighty (80) months imprisonment. Petitioner's conviction made him inadmissible to the United States and led to the revocation of his FAA Airman's Certificate. Petitioner was deported to his home country of Venezuela in March 2010. A public news article published after Petitioner was deported provided a U.S. address for Petitioner. Further, records indicated that Petitioner was a suspected international trafficker in firearms. There was evidence that Petitioner had previously been involved in the export of weapons and U.S.currency to Venezuela by private aircraft, was the second pilot of an aircraft from which several weapons and $500,000 was seized by local authorities in Aruba, and that one of his associates was arrested in Aruba for smuggling firearms. This information, viewed as a whole, demonstrated Petitioner's willingness to consistently disregard the law and to use an aircraft for criminal activity, in opposition to U.S. security interests. The information also raised concerns that Petitioner may use his ight training to advance the interests of a criminal enterprise, which could include an enterprise that seeks to do harm to the United States. *akataor What is important here is that, because Congress has entrusted TSA with broad authority over civil aviation security, it is TSA's jobnot * * * oursto strike a balance between convenience and security. Therefore, in cases of this sort, we must defer to 11.5.14. actions that reasonably interpret and enforce the safety and security obligations of the agency. * * * Courts do not second-guess expert agency judgments on potential risks to national security. Rather; we defer to the informed judgment of agency ofcials whose obligation it is to assess risks to national security. [Emphasis added.] Given TSA's broad authority to assess potential risks to aviation and national security, the agency's clear and reasonable explanation offered in the Vara Declaration, and the limited standard of review [under the holding in the Chevron case], we are in no position to second-guess TSA's judgment in denying Petitioner's application. lt is sebc-evldent that TSA'S action against Petitioner was related to the agency's goals offmprovlng the safety of air travel. TSA was not required to show that Petitioner would engage in activities designed to compromise aviation or national security. Rather, the agency was merely required to give a reasonable explanation as to why it believed that Petitioner presented a risk to aviation or national security. The Vara Declaration satises this legal obligation. [Emphasis added.] Decision and Remedy The federal appellate court denied Olivares's petition and upheld the TSA's ruling. The court concluded that the TSA had presented sufficient evidence to support its decision not to allow Olivares to attend the ight school. Therefore, even though the court found that the TSA had not notified Olivares of those reasons [as required under the Administrative Procedures Act], it upheld the agency's decision. Case 20.3 Olivares v. Transportation Security Administration United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 819 F.3d 454 (2016). Background and Facts Citizens of foreign countries who seek training and certification from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to operate U.S.-registered aircraft must first secure clearance by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Alberto Olivares, a citizen of Venezuela, applied to an FAA-certified flight school to learn how to pilot such an aircraft. After conducting a background check, the TSA determined that Olivares was a risk to aviation and national security and denied his application for training. The TSA did not offer any explanation of its action to Olivares. Olivares filed a petition in a federal appellate court seeking review of the TSA's decision. In the Words of the Court EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge: kakk * * * Andrea Vara executed a sworn declaration explaining TSA's grounds for denying Petitioner'sl Discussion: We will discuss the ease summaries that are in the textbook (e.g., Case 20.], Simmons v. Smith from chapter 20}. As preparation for these discussions, you should read the ease excerpt, compare the topic to corresponding material in the text, and be prepared to answer basic questions about the case, such as: Who are the parties in this case? What went wrong why are they in court? What court is the opinion from is it a trial court or appellate court? What question did the court have to decide in this case? What facts did the court focus on in deciding the case? Your preparation is intended to make it possible for us to have discussion about the case. You do not need to master the topic covered by the ease. My expectation is that you be familiar enough with the material to be able to answer my questions as we work through the subject. If you are able to do this, you will have satised this part of the class participation requirement