Boniface v. United States Dep't Of Homeland Sec.

Decision Date23 July 2010
Docket NumberNo. 09-1095.,09-1095.
Citation613 F.3d 282
PartiesLewis L. BONIFACE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and Transportation Security Administration, Respondents.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit



On Petition for Review of an Order of the Transportation Security Administration.

Meghan Ferguson, Student Counsel, argued the cause as amicus curiae in support of petitioner. With her on the briefs were Sean E. Andrussier and James E. Coleman, Jr., appointed by the court, and Samuel E. Burness, Kristin Collins Cope, and Lisa S. Hoppenjans, Student Counsel.

Lewis L. Boniface, pro se, filed briefs.

Benjamin M. Shultz, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Michael S. Raab, Attorney.

Before: GINSBURG, ROGERS and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GINSBURG.

Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge GINSBURG.

GINSBURG, Circuit Judge:

Lewis Boniface petitions for review of a 2009 order of the Transportation Security Administration, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, denying his request for waiver of a rule barring him from receiving a hazardous materials endorsement (HME) for his commercial driver's license because of his 1975 conviction for possession of an unregistered explosive device. We grant the petition and remand the matter to the agency to reconsider Boniface's request in the light of such evidence as he may submit.

I. Background

A state may not grant a driver a “license to operate a motor vehicle transporting in commerce a hazardous material” unless the DHS first notifies the state “that the individual does not pose a security risk warranting denial of the license.” 49 U.S.C. § 5103a(a)(1). The TSA, acting on behalf of the DHS, assesses whether an individual poses a security risk; in practice the TSA notifies the state an individual poses no threat by granting that individual an HME.

If the TSA determines an applicant for an HME has been convicted of any of several “disqualifying criminal offenses” listed in the TSA's threat assessment regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 1572.103, then it notifies the applicant of its “Initial Determination of Threat Assessment” he is “a security threat warranting denial” of his application. 49 C.F.R. §§ 1572.5(a)(1), 1572.15(d). The options then available to the applicant are summarized in the flow chart that follows.

Image 1 (3" X 3.82") Available for Offline Print

An applicant disqualified because of a criminal offense may within 60 days appeal that determination within the TSA and, if unsuccessful, then seek review in a court of appeals. 49 C.F.R. § 1515.5. If he does not appeal within 60 days, or if his administrative appeal is unsuccessful, then the Initial Determination of Threat Assessment becomes a Final Determination. See 49 C.F.R. §§ 1515.5(b)(1), (c). Alternatively, any time after receiving an Initial Determination of Threat Assessment and until 60 days after receiving a Final Determination, the applicant may request a waiver on the ground that in fact he “does not pose a security threat.” 49 C.F.R. §§ 1515.7(b), (c)(iii). Should his waiver request be denied, he may seek review of that decision as well, first before an Administrative Law Judge, then before the Deputy Administrator, and then by petitioning a court of appeals for review. 49 C.F.R. § 1515.11.

In 2008 Boniface sought a renewed HME from the TSA because his California commercial driver's license was set to expire. The TSA made an Initial Determination that Boniface's 1975 conviction for possession of an unregistered explosive device was a disqualifying criminal offense and denied his application for an HME. It sent him a letter dated May 13 explaining its determination and informing him he could appeal, request a waiver, or request a copy of the materials upon which the agency had relied in making its determination. The subsequent intercourse between Boniface and the agency is summarized below:

Image 2 (6.09" X 3.62") Available for Offline Print

On May 19, 2008 Boniface mailed a request for the materials upon which the agency had relied. On June 10, before the TSA responded to that request, he submitted an appeal to the agency, arguing his 1975 conviction was unlawful and invalid and therefore should not be considered a disqualifying criminal offense. On June 12 Boniface received the materials upon which the TSA had relied and on June 18 submitted an amended appeal in which he repeated the arguments in his first filing but also argued the threat assessment regulation retroactively penalized him for his 1975 conviction, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution of the United States.

If at that point the TSA had administratively denied Boniface's appeal, then he could have either requested a waiver or sought review in this court, making for a relatively straightforward case presenting only the legal issues discussed in Parts II.A and II.B below. Things did not proceed so simply, however.

On August 6 the TSA sent a letter informing Boniface it had received his request for a waiver-although there is no evidence in the record he had filed such a request-and was denying that request, in part because of “the absence of adequate documentation demonstrating that you are rehabilitated notwithstanding TSA's reasonable effort to obtain such information from you.” The letter made no reference to Boniface's appeal but did say he could challenge “the denial of [his] waiver request by requesting review by an [ALJ],” and that if he failed to do so within 30 days then the TSA's determination would become final.

Boniface duly followed the instructions included in the TSA's letter by requesting that an ALJ review the TSA's refusal to grant the waiver he had not requested. In the ensuing proceeding Boniface continued to assert his legal challenge to the TSA's reliance upon his 1975 conviction and added a complaint about the TSA's purporting to have denied the waiver he had not requested but which the agency had imputed to him and denied: The record, he wrote, “is a complete void of any [ ] request for the above-stated ‘information’ of ‘rehabilitation.’ ... If Boniface had been asked for ‘information’ of his ‘rehabilitation,’ he would have provided [a variety of evidence].”

The agency, for its part, continued to make clear its position that Boniface's objections were without merit. First, the ALJ affirmed the TSA's denial of a waiver; then the Deputy Administrator affirmed the decision of the ALJ. Only in the Deputy Administrator's January 2009 letter of denial did the agency shed any light upon what had become of Boniface's appeal. “In June 2008,” she wrote,

you filed an appeal with TSA. In July 2008, TSA informed you that your appeal would be processed as a waiver, since you did not meet the eligibility standards to hold an HME under the regulations.

There is no evidence in the record, however, that Boniface was so informed in July or at any other time prior to hearing from the Deputy Administrator.

Because the TSA's determination that his appeal was being processed as a request for a waiver was revealed to Boniface only in the course of denying his administrative appeal, Boniface then sought review in this court of both the TSA's underlying determination he poses a security threat and its denial of his imputed request for a waiver.

II. Analysis

Boniface, through a court-appointed Amicus, makes three arguments. First, he contends the TSA's determination he poses a security threat warranting denial of his application for an HME was erroneous because he did not have a disqualifying conviction and, second, even if he did, the regulations disqualifying him on the basis of a 1975 conviction are impermissibly retroactive. Third, he contends the agency's denial of his request for a waiver was arbitrary and capricious.

A. Disqualifying Conviction

Boniface argues his 1975 conviction for possession of an unregistered explosive device was invalid because it was obtained in violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. The IAD is an interstate compact which, among other things, requires dismissal of an indictment if a State, having received temporary custody for trial of a prisoner from another State, returns the prisoner without having tried him. Art. IV § (e).

The Government argues Boniface's position “is foreclosed by TSA's regulations.” We agree. The agency's regulations define a conviction as “any plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or any finding of guilt” unless “subsequently overturned on appeal, pardoned, or expunged.” 49 C.F.R. § 1570.3. This definition leaves no room for an applicant collaterally to attack his conviction in pursuit of an HME, which is what Boniface is trying to do here. The TSA correctly determined Boniface was convicted of a disqualifying offense for the purposes of the threat assessment regulation.

B. Retroactivity

Tagged with a disqualifying criminal offense, Boniface argues the TSA's threat assessment regulation has an unauthorized retroactive effect because it presumes an applicant with a disqualifying conviction that predates the regulations, which were first promulgated in 2003, 68 Fed.Reg. 23852, 23852, poses a security threat. As the Government points out, however, the Supreme Court has held a regulation is not retroactive in effect “merely because it draws upon antecedent facts for its operation.” Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 270 n. 24, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). Rather, in evaluating whether a statute or regulation has a retroactive effect we consider “whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed.” Id. at 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483; see also Bergerco Can. v. U.S. Treasury Dep't, 129 F.3d 189, 193 (D.C....

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Ohio Head Start Ass'n, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Civil Action No. 12–309 (CKK).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 9 Julio 2012
    ...only if the relevant statute shows the Congress clearly so intended. [873 F.Supp.2d 346]Boniface v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 613 F.3d 282, 288 (D.C.Cir.2010) (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994)). A regulation is not retroactive......
  • Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Trump
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • 20 Septiembre 2019
    ...Celtronix Telemetry, Inc. , 272 F.3d at 589.The government rests its argument primarily on Boniface v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 613 F.3d 282 (D.C. Cir. 2010), and Matherly v. Andrews , 817 F.3d 115 (4th Cir. 2016). In Boniface , the court considered a regulation directing DHS to consid......
  • Nat'l Petrochemical & Refiners Ass'n v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, s. 10–1070
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 21 Diciembre 2010 duties with respect to transactions already completed.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483; see Boniface v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 613 F.3d 282, 288 (D.C.Cir.2010). This court has recognized the distinction between a rule that imposes new sanctions on past conduct, which is......
  • Pinkerton v. Transp. Sec. Admin., Case No. 11-CV-421-JED-FHM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Northern District of Oklahoma
    • 31 Marzo 2014
    ...should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). See, e.g., Boniface v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 613 F.3d 282 (C.A.D.C. 2010) (providing chart showing options of appellate review ending in the court of appeals); Roberts v. Napolitano, 798......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 62 No. 5, April 2021
    • 1 Abril 2021
    ...Courts routinely review agency decisions denying applications for issues big and small. See, e.g., Boniface v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec, 613 F.3d 282 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (ordering judicial review of agency denial of particular driver's application for hazardous materials endorsement on licen......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT