Alfred M. Adams v. Federal Aviation Administration

Good Law
1 F.3d 955·93 Daily Journal DAR 10363·1993 WL 302787·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 20453·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6039
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 12, 199392-70089California815 words

Opinion

Opinion

Appellant Alfred Adams seeks direct review of Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) Flight Standards Service Director Thomas Accardi’s decision not to renew his Pilot Examiner Designation. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the FAA administrator’s decision. Accordingly, Adams’ petition is dismissed.

Adams was designated as a Pilot Examiner, pursuant to the Federal Aviation (“FA”) Act. See 49 U.S.C.App. § 1355(a) (1988). The FA Act also authorizes the rescission of any such designation. The FA Act provides, in pertinent part:

49 U.S.C.App. § 1355(a) (1988) (emphasis added).

Although the FA Act grants this court jurisdiction to review orders issued by the Board or Secretary of Transportation, we also must consider the restrictions placed on the court’s authority to review such orders articulated in the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. The APA confers a general cause of action upon any person “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute,” 5 U.S.C. § 702 (1988), but withdraws that cause of action to the extent the relevant statute “precluded] judicial review” or “agency action is committed to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.