Payam Kambod v. Faa , 685 F. App'x 515 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      MAR 23 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    PAYAM KAMBOD,                                    No. 16-71054
    Petitioner,                     NTSB No. EA-5767
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    FEDERAL AVIATION
    ADMINISTRATION; NATIONAL
    TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD,
    Respondents.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    National Transportation Safety Board
    Submitted March 8, 2017**
    Before:       LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    Payam Kambod petitions pro se for review of the National Transportation
    Safety Board’s (“NTSB”) final order revoking Kambod’s airline pilot, flight
    instructor, and ground instructor certificates. We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C.
    §§ 1153(a), 44709(f), and 46110(a). We review the NTSB’s final order under the
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    arbitrary and capricious standard. Gilbert v. NTSB, 
    80 F.3d 364
    , 368 (9th Cir.
    1996). We deny the petition for review.
    The NTSB’s determination that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not
    abuse his discretion in denying Kambod’s requests for a continuance was not
    arbitrary and capricious because the ALJ had broad discretion to regulate the
    conduct of the hearing. See 49 C.F.R. § 821.35(b); Adm’r v. Lackey, NTSB Order.
    No. EA-5419 (2008) (“We have long held that law judges have significant
    discretion in overseeing administrative hearings and admitting evidence into the
    record.”).
    The NTSB’s determination that the ALJ did not abuse his discretion in
    denying Kambod’s request for a waiver of emergency proceedings was not
    arbitrary and capricious because delaying the proceedings after the hearing had
    commenced would have placed an undue burden on the Administrator, court
    resources, witnesses, and the ALJ. See 49 C.F.R. § 821.52(d); Tur v. FAA, 
    4 F.3d 766
    , 770 (9th Cir. 1993) (discussing waiver of emergency proceedings).
    Because Kambod failed to raise any of his other contentions before the
    NTSB, those contentions are waived. See 49 U.S.C. § 46110(d); Reid v. Engen,
    
    765 F.2d 1457
    , 1462 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (declining to rule on issues
    not raised before an agency tribunal).
    2                                  16-71054
    We reject as without merit Kambod’s contentions regarding FAA or ALJ
    bias.
    PETITION DENIED.
    3                                16-71054
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-71054

Citation Numbers: 685 F. App'x 515

Filed Date: 3/23/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023