Yonas Fikre v. Fbi ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                 FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    YONAS FIKRE,                            No. 20-35904
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    D.C. No.
    v.                     3:13-cv-00899-
    MO
    FEDERAL BUREAU OF
    INVESTIGATION; MERRICK B.
    GARLAND, Attorney General;                OPINION
    ANTONY BLINKEN; CHRISTOPHER A.
    WRAY; CHARLES H. KABLE IV,
    Director of the Terrorist Screening
    Center; PAUL NAKASONE, Director
    of the National Security Agency;
    AVRIL D. HAINES, Director of
    National Intelligence; ALEJANDRO
    MAYORKAS, Secretary of the
    Department of Homeland Security;
    DAVID PEKOSKE, Administrator of
    the Transportation Security
    Administration,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted November 15, 2021
    Pasadena, California
    2                          FIKRE V. FBI
    Filed May 27, 2022
    Before: Marsha S. Berzon and Johnnie B. Rawlinson,
    Circuit Judges, and John Antoon II, * District Judge.
    Opinion by Judge Berzon
    SUMMARY **
    No Fly List
    The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal on
    mootness grounds of Yonas Fikre’s substantive due process
    and non-stigma-related procedural due process No Fly List
    claims; vacated the district court’s dismissal of Fikre’s
    stigma-plus procedural due process claim; and remanded to
    the district court to consider, in the first instance, whether
    Fikre stated a viable stigma-plus procedural due process
    claim considering both his past placement on the No Fly List
    and his alleged inclusion in the Terrorist Screening
    Database.
    The panel held that because the government failed to
    follow the instructions given by this Court the last time
    Fikre’s case was before the court, see Fikre v. FBI (Fikre I),
    
    904 F.3d 1033
     (9th Cir. 2018), the district court erred by
    dismissing as moot Fikre’s No Fly List claims. In Fikre I,
    *
    The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the
    Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    **
    This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It
    has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
    FIKRE V. FBI                          3
    the Court held that an exception to mootness – the voluntary
    cessation doctrine – applied to Fikre’s No Fly List claim. On
    remand, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Christopher
    Courtright filed a declaration in support of the government’s
    motion to dismiss. The panel held that the Courtright
    Declaration did not provide the assurances specified by
    Fikre I as adequate to overcome the voluntary cessation to
    mootness. The government has assured Fikre only that he
    does not currently meet the criteria for inclusion on the No
    Fly List. It has not repudiated the decision to place Fikre on
    the list, nor has it identified any criteria for inclusion on the
    list that may have changed. Because Fikre I governs, the
    district court should not have dismissed the No Fly List due
    process claims as moot.
    The panel held that 
    49 U.S.C. § 46110
    (a) did not divest
    the district court of jurisdiction over Fikre’s No Fly List
    claims. Section 46110, as relevant here, concerns judicial
    review of orders issued by the TSA Administrator. If Fikre’s
    lawsuit challenges an order by the TSA Administrator, as the
    government contends, then the district court would lack
    jurisdiction over this claim. But if his lawsuit challenges the
    conduct of another agency, such as the Terrorist Screening
    Center, then § 46110 is inapplicable. The panel held that
    Fikre was not challenging the TSA Administrator’s decision
    refusing to remove him from the No Fly List under the
    Department of Homeland Security’s Travel Redress Inquiry
    Program process, he was challenging the Screening Center’s
    decision to place him on the No Fly List in the first place.
    Fikre also appealed the district court’s dismissal of his
    complaint for failure to state a cognizable stigma-plus
    procedural due process claim. Under the “stigma-plus” test
    of Hart v. Parks, 
    450 F.3d 1059
    , 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2006), a
    plaintiff who has suffered reputational harm at the hands of
    4                       FIKRE V. FBI
    the government may assert a cognizable liberty interest for
    procedural due process purposes if the plaintiff “suffers
    stigma from governmental action plus alteration or
    extinguishment of ‘a right or status previously recognized by
    state law.’” Because the district court erred by dismissing as
    moot Fikre’s claims pertaining to his placement on the No
    Fly List, the panel vacated the district court’s dismissal of
    Fikre’s stigma-plus claim and remanded for the district court
    to consider whether Fikre had a viable procedural due
    process claim when his No Fly List-related injuries were also
    considered.
    Finally, the panel considered the scope of remand. The
    panel held that that both Fikre’s substantive due process and
    non-stigma-related procedural due process claims pertaining
    to his placement by the Screening Center on the No Fly List,
    and his alleged placement in the Database, will be before the
    district court on remand. Any substantive due process
    claims pertaining to his placement in the Database will not.
    COUNSEL
    Brandon B. Mayfield (argued), Law Office of Brandon
    Mayfield, Beaverton, Oregon; Gadeir I. Abbas (argued),
    Lena F. Masri, and Justin Sadowsky, Cair Legal Defense
    Fund, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Joshua Waldman (argued) and Sharon Swingle, Appellate
    Staff; Scott Erik Asphaug, Acting United States Attorney;
    Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Civil
    Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
    D.C.; for Defendants-Appellees.
    FIKRE V. FBI                         5
    OPINION
    BERZON, Circuit Judge:
    For a second time, Plaintiff-Appellant Yonas Fikre
    appeals the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit alleging
    that the Federal Bureau of Investigation violated his
    substantive and procedural due process rights by placing and
    maintaining him in the Terrorist Screening Database and on
    its constituent No Fly List. After the government removed
    Fikre from the No Fly List and submitted a declaration
    stating that Fikre would “not be placed on the No Fly List in
    the future” based on “currently available information,” the
    district court dismissed as moot Fikre’s claims pertaining to
    his inclusion on the No Fly List. The district court then
    dismissed Fikre’s claims pertaining to his inclusion in the
    broader Terrorist Screening Database on the ground that he
    failed to state a cognizable stigma-plus procedural due
    process claim.
    Because the government has failed to follow the
    instructions given by this Court the last time Fikre’s case was
    before us, see Fikre v. FBI (Fikre I), 
    904 F.3d 1033
     (9th Cir.
    2018), we hold that the district court erred by dismissing as
    moot Fikre’s No Fly List claims. We also hold that
    
    49 U.S.C. § 46110
    (a) does not divest the district court of
    jurisdiction over Fikre’s No Fly List claims. We remand to
    the district court to consider, in the first instance, whether
    Fikre’s complaint states a viable substantive or procedural
    due process claim with respect to his inclusion on the
    government’s watchlists when his Database and No Fly List
    allegations are considered together.
    6                      FIKRE V. FBI
    I. Background
    A. The Terrorist Screening Database
    In 2003, President George W. Bush executed Homeland
    Security Presidential Directive 6, which instructed the
    Attorney General to “establish an organization to
    consolidate the Government’s approach to terrorism
    screening.” Homeland Security Presidential Directive-6—
    Directive on Integration and Use of Screening Information
    to Protect Against Terrorism, 39 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc.
    1234 (Sept. 16, 2003). Pursuant to that directive, the
    Attorney General created the Terrorist Screening Center
    (“the Screening Center”), a multi-agency entity administered
    by the FBI that consolidates the United States government’s
    terrorist watchlists into a single database—the Terrorist
    Screening Database (“TSDB” or “Database”). “The TSDB
    is maintained by the” Screening Center, which places an
    individual in the Database “when there is ‘reasonable
    suspicion’ that he or she is a known or suspected terrorist.”
    Kashem v. Barr, 
    941 F.3d 358
    , 365 (9th Cir. 2019). After a
    United States government agency or a foreign partner with
    whom the United States shares terrorist screening
    information nominates an individual for inclusion in the
    Database, the Screening Center reviews the nomination and
    determines whether to add the individual to the Database.
    Fikre alleges that the final authority to accept, reject, or
    modify a nomination to the Database rests with the
    Screening Center alone and that the Screening Center does
    not notify individuals about their nomination or inclusion in
    the Database.
    Once individuals have been placed in the Database, the
    Screening Center sorts them into constituent lists, used by a
    different government agency—the Transportation Security
    Administration (“TSA”)—for screening purposes. The No
    FIKRE V. FBI                         7
    Fly List, the most restrictive of these lists, is reserved for
    individuals in the Database whom the Screening Center has
    determined pose a threat of committing an act of
    international or domestic terrorism, including acts of
    terrorism using aircraft or against U.S. government facilities.
    Kashem, 941 F.3d at 365–66. “Federal departments and
    agencies submit nominations for inclusion on the No Fly
    List, and [the Screening Center] decides which individuals
    to include.” Id. at 365. After the Screening Center decides
    to place someone on the No Fly List, TSA prohibits those
    individuals from boarding commercial aircraft that fly over
    United States airspace. Id.; see 
    49 C.F.R. § 1560.105
    (b)(1).
    Individuals included in the Database who are not on the
    No Fly List are generally permitted to board commercial
    aircraft but are subject to enhanced security screenings at
    airports and border crossings. In addition to the standard
    metal detector, advanced imaging technology, or pat-down
    screening applied to all air passengers, enhanced screening
    for individuals included in the Database can include
    individual searches, physical inspection of the inside of their
    luggage, examination of their electronics to ensure that any
    devices can be turned on, and screening of their property for
    traces of explosives. Fikre also alleges that, when
    individuals in the Database are at border crossings, the
    government searches and copies the contents of their
    electronic devices, and that the government assigns them
    “handling codes.” The handling codes, Fikre alleges,
    provide instructions for law enforcement officers about how
    to treat someone listed in the Database during an encounter,
    and can require “their arrest or other adverse treatment”
    during such encounters. He also alleges that the government
    bars individuals in the Database from access to employment
    with federal agencies and certain industries, and that the
    government disseminates the Databases’ lists to government
    8                       FIKRE V. FBI
    agencies around the country and to foreign governments.
    The government does not disclose the criteria for inclusion
    in the Database.
    To permit individuals to challenge their inclusion on the
    No Fly List and the Database, the TSA administers the
    Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress
    Inquiry Program (“DHS TRIP”).                  See 
    49 U.S.C. §§ 44903
    (j)(2)(C)(iii)(I), (j)(2)(G)(i); 
    id.
     §§ 44926(a),
    (b)(1); 
    49 C.F.R. §§ 1560.201
    –207. Under the DHS TRIP
    process, individuals included on the No Fly List may ask
    why they were placed on the No Fly List. If they do so, they
    will be provided with a letter identifying the specific
    reason(s) for their listing, as well as an unclassified summary
    of information supporting that listing.               The TSA
    Administrator then has the authority, in light of these
    materials and a report submitted by the Screening Center’s
    Redress Office, to remove an individual from or maintain an
    individual on the No Fly List. Fikre also alleges that,
    independently of the DHS TRIP process, “[the Screening
    Center] periodically reviews its TSDB listings and No Fly
    List annotations” and “occasionally imposes or removes No
    Fly List annotations.”
    With respect to individuals in the Database who are not
    also on the No Fly List, the procedures are different.
    Following a traveler inquiry regarding inclusion in the
    Database, the Screening Center Redress Office may decide
    whether to remove the individual from the Database, but the
    government neither confirms nor denies a person’s inclusion
    in or deletion from the Database. Nor does the government
    provide individuals in the Database with the underlying
    reasons or intelligence justifying the individual’s inclusion
    in the Database.
    FIKRE V. FBI                              9
    B. Factual and Procedural History
    Yonas Fikre is a naturalized U.S. citizen of Eritrean
    descent. 1 At some point in late 2009 or early 2010, Fikre
    moved to Sudan and began a business venture that involved
    selling consumer electronic products in East Africa. During
    an April 2010 visit to the U.S. embassy in Sudan, Fikre was
    approached by two FBI agents. The agents interrogated him
    concerning his association with a mosque in Portland,
    Oregon, where he used to live. In the course of that
    interrogation, the FBI agents informed Fikre that he had been
    placed on the No Fly List but suggested that they would
    remove him from the list if he agreed to become an FBI
    informant. Fikre refused.
    Several months later, Fikre traveled on business to the
    United Arab Emirates. There, UAE police arrested,
    imprisoned, and tortured him. In the course of his detention,
    UAE police interrogated him concerning his association
    with the Portland mosque. During one interrogation, a UAE
    officer told Fikre that the FBI had requested his detention
    and interrogation.
    Fikre was eventually released from detention in the
    UAE. Unable to fly home to the United States because of
    his No Fly List status, he traveled to Sweden, where he
    applied for asylum. Fikre eventually began the process of
    seeking to modify his No Fly List status through the DHS
    1
    Because we are reviewing the district court’s grant of a motion to
    dismiss, “we recite the facts as alleged in [Fikre’s] complaint, and
    assume them to be true.” Brooks v. Clark County, 
    828 F.3d 910
    , 914 n.1
    (9th Cir. 2016).
    10                          FIKRE V. FBI
    TRIP procedures. 2 On February 14, 2015, the Swedish
    government returned Fikre to Portland by private jet.
    In 2013, before leaving Sweden and before filing his
    DHS TRIP inquiry, Fikre filed this lawsuit, alleging that the
    United States government had violated his substantive and
    procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by
    including him on the No Fly List and providing inadequate
    means for him to challenge that designation. As the
    litigation was proceeding, in January 2014 and again in
    March 2015, the TSA informed Fikre that no change to his
    No Fly List status was warranted. A little over a year later,
    however, while the government’s motion to dismiss Fikre’s
    complaint was pending, the government filed a notice in the
    district court stating, without explanation, that the Screening
    Center had notified the government that Fikre “has been
    removed from the No Fly List.” Based on that notice, the
    district court dismissed Fikre’s due process claim as moot.
    Fikre appealed the district court’s mootness holding to
    this Court, and we reversed. In Fikre I, we held that an
    exception to mootness—the “voluntary cessation”
    exception—applied to Fikre’s No Fly List claim because
    “the government remain[ed] practically and legally ‘free to
    return to [its] old ways’ despite abandoning them in the
    ongoing litigation.” 904 F.3d at 1039 (second alteration in
    original) (quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 
    345 U.S. 2
    While Fikre was in Sweden, the United States in 2012 indicted him
    and two other individuals for conspiracy to structure monetary transfers.
    Fikre alleges this indictment was instigated because he had publicized
    his inclusion on the No Fly List and his subsequent detention in the UAE.
    Fikre also alleges that the government brought that prosecution in part
    based on surveillance of his telephone calls, text messages, and emails
    that had been conducted sometime in 2010 without a warrant or probable
    cause.
    FIKRE V. FBI                             11
    629, 632 (1953)). In particular, we emphasized that the
    government had neither “assured Fikre that he will not be
    banned from flying for the same reasons that prompted the
    government to add him to the list in the first place” nor
    “verified the implementation of procedural safeguards
    conditioning its ability to revise Fikre’s status on the receipt
    of new information.”           
    Id. at 1040
    .        “Absent an
    acknowledgment by the government that its investigation
    revealed Fikre did not belong on the list, and that he will not
    be returned to the list based on the currently available
    evidence,” we determined, “vindication in this action would
    have actual and palpable consequences for Fikre.” 
    Id.
    On remand, the government again moved to dismiss
    Fikre’s complaint, then in its sixth amended version. 3 FBI
    Supervisory Special Agent Christopher Courtright filed a
    declaration (the “Courtright Declaration”) in support of the
    government’s motion to dismiss. In addition to providing an
    overview of the Database, the Courtright Declaration states
    that Fikre “was placed on the No Fly List in accordance with
    applicable policies and procedures”; that on May 6, 2016,
    “[the Screening Center] advised counsel for the Defendants”
    that Fikre “had been removed from the No Fly [L]ist”; that
    Fikre “was removed from the No Fly List upon
    determination that he no longer satisfied the criteria for
    placement on the No Fly List”; and that Fikre “will not be
    placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently
    available information.”
    In its motion to dismiss, the government argued that the
    Courtright Declaration’s statement that Fikre would not be
    3
    In this version of the complaint, Fikre alleged that the government
    violated his substantive and procedural due process rights by placing and
    maintaining him both on the No Fly List and in the Database generally.
    12                           FIKRE V. FBI
    placed back on the No Fly List “based on the currently
    available information” “satisfies one of the [Fikre I] panel’s
    concerns because it unequivocally demonstrates that there
    are ‘procedural hurdles to reinstating [Plaintiff] on the No
    Fly List based solely on the facts already known.’” “To the
    extent that the Ninth Circuit panel determined that the
    Government must also ‘renounce[]’ its prerogative to place
    [Fikre] on the No Fly List in the first place,” however, the
    government “respectfully disagree[d].” (first alteration in
    original). The government instead maintained that, because
    “watchlisting decisions are based on current assessments of
    the risks posed by particular individuals” and “evaluations
    change as the available information changes,” it was
    “inappropriate” for this Court to require “an
    acknowledgement by the government that its investigation
    revealed [Fikre] did not belong on the list.” Echoing the
    Courtright Declaration, the government reiterated that “the
    fact that a person was removed from the watchlist or one of
    its subsets does not mean that the original placement was in
    error or unlawful.”
    On November 14, 2019, the district court heard oral
    argument on the government’s motion to dismiss. Ruling
    from the bench, the district court held that Fikre’s due
    process claims pertaining to his inclusion on the No Fly List
    were moot in light of the Courtright Declaration, which the
    district court described as a “barrier . . . to putting him back
    on the list.” 4 But the district court granted Fikre leave to
    amend his complaint to allege additional facts regarding
    4
    The district court framed this issue as one of “standing” but later
    clarified, in the written order dismissing Fikre’s Seventh Amended
    Complaint (the operative one in this appeal), that the government “had
    met their burden under the voluntary cessation doctrine as laid out by the
    Ninth Circuit’s decision in this case.”
    FIKRE V. FBI                       13
    ongoing reputational injuries he has suffered by virtue of his
    alleged inclusion in the Database, which the district court
    indicated could serve as an independent basis for a due
    process claim.
    On December 18, 2019, Fikre filed his Seventh
    Amended Complaint. The Seventh Amended Complaint
    added allegations that Fikre’s reputation was harmed when,
    due to his status as an individual listed in the Database, he
    was subjected to enhanced screening on two flights in
    2016—one from Seattle to Mecca to complete a religious
    pilgrimage, the other to San Diego for a family trip.
    Specifically, Fikre alleges that, due to his inclusion in the
    Database, he was subjected to enhanced screening at several
    points during these trips.
    For example, when he checked in for his flight from
    Seattle to Mecca, the ticketing agent had to call federal
    agents for “individualized permission to print Fikre’s
    boarding pass” and stamped his boarding pass with an
    “SSSS” notation, which Fikre alleges “indicates a person’s
    TSDB status.” As Fikre was going through airport security
    in Seattle, the TSA, “in accordance with his TSDB status,”
    subjected Fikre “to invasive and disparate screening,” which
    was witnessed by his co-travelers. And at the gate in Seattle,
    agents asked him to step aside and again searched him,
    patted him down, and swabbed his belongings in front of his
    co-travelers. Fikre alleges that similar inspections took
    place when he boarded a connecting flight in Chicago; when
    he boarded his flight leaving Saudi Arabia to return to the
    United States; and when he flew to San Diego with his
    family on a separate 2016 trip. The Seventh Amended
    Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including
    a declaration that the government violated his due process
    rights by placing him on the No Fly List and an injunction
    14                          FIKRE V. FBI
    requiring that the government remove him from the
    Database and “repudiate in its entirety the decision to add
    Fikre to the TSDB with a No Fly List annotation and
    maintain him there for approximately five years.”
    Once more, the government moved to dismiss Fikre’s
    complaint. The district court granted the motion. The
    district court first reiterated that it had already dismissed as
    moot Fikre’s due process claims “insofar as they were based
    on a theory of present or future injury to a travel-related
    liberty interest” due to his inclusion on the No Fly List.
    Turning to Fikre’s Database-related claims, the district court
    dismissed the claim that the government had violated his
    Fifth Amendment substantive due process rights by placing
    him in the Database.
    With regard to his procedural due process claim, Fikre
    argued that he had pleaded a cognizable “stigma-plus”
    liberty interest stemming from his alleged inclusion in the
    Database. 5 Specifically, Fikre argued that the government
    harmed his reputation by subjecting him to enhanced
    screenings during his 2016 flights to Mecca and San Diego
    and that, in connection with those reputational harms,
    Fikre’s watchlist status led to his detention and torture in the
    UAE, his prohibition from flying over United States airspace
    while he was on the No Fly List, his 2012 indictment, the
    unconstitutional surveillance of his phone and email
    5
    As explained in more depth in Part II.C of this opinion, a “stigma-
    plus” claim allows a plaintiff to recover for reputational harm inflicted
    by the government where the plaintiff can show that he was “stigmatized
    in connection with the denial of a ‘more tangible’ interest.” Hart v.
    Parks, 
    450 F.3d 1059
    , 1069 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Paul v. Davis, 
    424 U.S. 693
    , 701 (1976)). Fikre’s appeal—to the extent that it challenges
    his inclusion in the Database—focuses exclusively on this type of
    procedural due process claim.
    FIKRE V. FBI                        15
    communications in 2010, interference with his religious
    exercise, and several other burdens.
    The district court agreed that the government had
    publicly stigmatized him “by subjecting him to intensive,
    repeated, non-random security screenings in front of
    members of his community and family during his 2016
    Mecca and San Diego trips,” and that Fikre therefore
    suffered a reputational injury sufficient to support a “stigma-
    plus” procedural due process claim. The court concluded,
    however, that Fikre failed to state a “plus” factor—the
    alteration or deprivation of a more tangible right or status—
    caused by or in connection with that 2016 reputational harm,
    as required by the governing case law. See Hart, 
    450 F.3d at
    1069–70. In particular, the district court noted that,
    although he was subjected to enhanced screening during his
    2016 trips, Fikre was not “prevented or significantly
    impeded from traveling during those two trips” and that,
    aside from enhanced screening, Fikre “has not alleged that
    he has personally suffered any” of the other consequences of
    inclusion in the Database, “such as the denial of credentials
    or employment” with federal agencies or certain industries.
    As for Fikre’s other asserted “plus” factors, the district court
    concluded that “the surrounding circumstances of each
    violation ha[d] absolutely nothing to do with the events of
    Mr. Fikre’s 2016 reputational injury”; they involved
    “different actors,” “occurred years apart,” and “happened for
    a host of possible different reasons.” The district court
    therefore dismissed Fikre’s procedural due process claim
    relating to his inclusion in the Database.
    Fikre now appeals both the district court’s dismissal on
    mootness grounds of his No Fly List-related claims and the
    district court’s dismissal of his stigma-plus procedural due
    process claim related to his inclusion in the Database.
    16                      FIKRE V. FBI
    II. Discussion
    A. Mootness
    We first address whether the district court erred by once
    again dismissing as moot Fikre’s due process claims relating
    to his inclusion on the No Fly List. We conclude it did.
    The Courtright Declaration submitted by the government
    on remand does not provide the assurances specified by
    Fikre I as adequate to overcome the voluntary cessation
    exception to mootness. And because Fikre I governs, the
    district court should not have dismissed the No Fly List due
    process claims as moot.
    “Article III of the Constitution,” as we explained in
    Fikre I, “grants the Judicial Branch authority to adjudicate
    ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Fikre I, 904 F.3d at 1037
    (quoting Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 
    568 U.S. 85
    , 90 (2013)).
    When the issues presented by a case “are no longer ‘live’”
    or when “the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
    outcome,” a case becomes moot and therefore no longer
    constitutes a “Case” or “Controversy” under Article III. 
    Id.
    (quoting Already, 
    568 U.S. at 91
    ). The “voluntary cessation
    of allegedly illegal conduct,” however, does not moot a case
    unless the party asserting mootness satisfies the “heavy
    burden” of making it “absolutely clear the allegedly
    wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to
    recur.” Id. at 1037, 1039 (first quoting County of Los
    Angeles v. Davis, 
    440 U.S. 625
    , 631 (1979); then quoting
    Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 
    528 U.S. 216
    , 222
    (2000); and then quoting Already, 
    568 U.S. at 91
    ).
    Under the law of the case doctrine, ordinarily, “when a
    court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should
    continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in
    FIKRE V. FBI                              17
    the same case.” Askins v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
    
    899 F.3d 1035
    , 1042 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Musacchio v.
    United States, 
    577 U.S. 237
    , 244–45 (2016)). 6 Accordingly,
    absent the applicability of exceptions, “one panel of an
    appellate court will not reconsider matters resolved in a prior
    appeal to another panel in the same case.” Leslie Salt Co. v.
    United States, 
    55 F.3d 1388
    , 1392 (9th Cir. 1995). This
    Court specified in Fikre I what the government was required
    to do to show that it is “absolutely clear the allegedly
    wrongful behavior”—Fikre’s inclusion on the No Fly List—
    “could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Accordingly,
    we assess whether the Courtright Declaration satisfies the
    criteria identified in Fikre I and thereby overcomes the
    voluntary cessation exception. Fikre I, 904 F.3d at 1039
    (quoting Already, 
    568 U.S. at 91
    ). Under this analysis, the
    Courtright Declaration does not do the job.
    First, like the government’s 2016 notice, the Courtright
    Declaration treats Fikre’s removal from the No Fly List
    essentially as “an individualized determination untethered to
    any explanation or change in policy, much less an abiding
    change in policy.” 
    Id.
     at 1039–40. That notice stated,
    without more, that the government’s lawyers were “advised
    by the Terrorist Screening Center that [Fikre] has been
    removed from the No Fly List.” Id. at 1040 (alteration in
    original). Fikre I noted that the government had recently
    determined, at the conclusion of the DHS TRIP process, that
    Fikre still posed “a threat to civil aviation or national
    6
    There are exceptions to the law of the case doctrine: when “the first
    decision was clearly erroneous,” “an intervening change in the law has
    occurred,” the evidence at the later stage of the case “is substantially
    different,” “other changed circumstances exist,” or “a manifest injustice
    would otherwise result.” Askins, 899 F.3d at 1042 (quoting United States
    v. Cuddy, 
    147 F.3d 1111
    , 1114 (9th Cir. 1998)). None of these
    exceptions applies here.
    18                       FIKRE V. FBI
    security.” 
    Id.
     Although the government then removed Fikre
    from the No Fly List “two months after briefing was
    completed on the government’s motion to dismiss Fikre’s
    lawsuit,” the lack of “explanation or any announced change
    in policy” suggested “that Fikre’s removal from the No Fly
    List was more likely an exercise of discretion than a decision
    arising from a broad change in agency policy or procedure.”
    
    Id.
    The Courtright Declaration, similarly, provides no
    explanation for Fikre’s inclusion on or removal from the No
    Fly List and, far from announcing a change in policy
    regarding inclusion on the No Fly List, indicates that there
    has been none. So it continues to appear that Fikre’s removal
    from the No Fly List was “more likely an exercise of
    discretion than a decision arising from a broad change in
    agency policy or procedure.” 
    Id.
     The only explanation the
    Declaration provides is the statement that Fikre “was
    removed from the No Fly List upon determination that he no
    longer satisfied the criteria” for inclusion on the list. But that
    sentence neither explains what those criteria are nor
    identifies any change to the policies, procedures, and criteria
    under which Fikre was placed on the No Fly List in the first
    place.     The clear implication from the Courtright
    Declaration, then, is that the government has not changed its
    policies but that something else has changed to warrant
    Fikre’s change in status, apparently something about Fikre.
    Second, Fikre I recognized that “the government’s
    unambiguous renunciation of its past actions can
    compensate for the ease with which it may relapse into
    them.” Id. at 1039. Because the government there had “not
    repudiated the decision to add Fikre to the No Fly List and
    maintain him there for approximately five years,” id.
    at 1040, there was no basis to conclude in Fikre I that “the
    FIKRE V. FBI                        19
    current permission Fikre has to travel by air” was
    “‘entrenched’ or ‘permanent,’” id. (quoting McCormack v.
    Herzog, 
    788 F.3d 1017
    , 1025 (9th Cir. 2015)), or that the
    government had “acquiesce[d] to the righteousness of
    Fikre’s contentions,” 
    id.
     “Absent an acknowledgment by the
    government that its investigation revealed Fikre did not
    belong on the list, and that he will not be returned to the list
    based on the currently available evidence,” Fikre remained
    stigmatized “as a known or suspected terrorist.” 
    Id.
    The Courtright Declaration does not satisfy the heavy
    burden of making it absolutely clear that the government
    would not in the future return Fikre to the No Fly List for the
    same reason it placed him there originally. Like the
    government’s 2016 notice, it neither “repudiate[s] the
    decision to add Fikre to the No Fly List” nor “assure[s] Fikre
    that he will not be banned from flying for the same reasons
    that prompted the government to add him to the list in the
    first place.” 
    Id.
     In fact, it does the opposite: instead of
    renouncing the government’s original decision, the
    Courtright Declaration doubles down on it, maintaining that
    Fikre “was placed on the No Fly List in accordance with
    applicable policies and procedures.” Indeed, in its motion to
    dismiss Fikre’s Sixth Amended Complaint and its brief on
    appeal, the government expressly disavowed any intent to
    repudiate its decision to place Fikre on the No Fly List
    originally, maintaining that “there is no such invariable
    requirement for demonstrating mootness.”
    Third, Fikre I emphasized that another reason the
    government could not evade the voluntary cessation
    exception to mootness was because it had not “verified the
    implementation of procedural safeguards conditioning its
    ability to revise Fikre’s status on the receipt of new
    information.” 
    Id. at 1040
    . Likewise, the Courtright
    20                      FIKRE V. FBI
    Declaration provides no sign that any such procedural
    safeguards have been implemented. To the contrary, that
    Declaration refers to “applicable policies and procedures” as
    if static from the time Fikre was placed on the No Fly List
    until now.
    The government nevertheless maintains that, by
    providing that Fikre “will not be placed on the No Fly List
    in the future based on the currently available information,”
    the Courtright Declaration “condition[s] its ability to revise
    Fikre’s status on the receipt of new information.” That
    statement, however, does not ensure that Fikre “will not be
    banned from flying for the same reasons that prompted the
    government to add him to the list in the first place.” Fikre I,
    904 F.3d at 1040. Instead, the Declaration indicates only
    that Fikre “no longer satisfie[s]” the government’s criteria,
    based on information available now regarding Fikre’s
    current circumstances. (emphasis added). Should Fikre’s
    circumstances change back to what they were when he was
    first placed on the No Fly List, he could be placed on the list
    again “for the same reasons that prompted the government
    to add him to the list in the first place.” Id.
    We disagree with the government’s contention that the
    phrase “currently available information” “necessarily
    subsumes the information known” when Fikre was first
    placed on the No Fly List and that any decision to add him
    to the List again “would necessarily be based on a new
    factual record.” The government insists elsewhere in its
    brief that it need not “declare that plaintiff should not have
    been placed on the No Fly List even in the past, based on the
    information available to the government at that time”
    because No Fly List decisions “are highly fact-dependent
    assessments” based “on the information available to the
    government at that time.” (emphasis added). Likewise, in
    FIKRE V. FBI                        21
    its motion to dismiss Fikre’s Sixth Amended Complaint, the
    government maintained that “watchlisting decisions are
    based on current assessments of the risks posed by particular
    individuals” and that the Courtright Declaration addressed
    only “the Government’s current assessment of Plaintiff,” not
    its assessment at “the point at which Plaintiff was originally
    nominated.” In light of these additional statements, the
    government’s careful choice of words in the sentence first
    quoted in this paragraph appears to connote only that Fikre
    will not be placed on the No Fly List now based on what he
    did in the past, not that he would not be placed on the List if
    “a new factual record” showed that he was engaging in the
    same or similar conduct once again.
    In sum, the government has assured Fikre only that he
    does not currently meet the criteria for inclusion on the No
    Fly List. It has not “repudiated the decision” to place Fikre
    on the list, nor has it identified any criteria for inclusion on
    the list that may have changed. Thus, there is no reason to
    believe that the government would not place Fikre on the list
    “for the same reasons that prompted the government to add
    him to the list in the first place.” Fikre I, 904 F.3d at 1040.
    As before, “the government remains practically and legally
    ‘free to return to [its] old ways’” the moment Fikre again
    meets whatever criteria he satisfied initially. Id. at 1039
    (alteration in original) (quoting W.T. Grant, 345 U.S.
    at 632).
    Aside from relying on the Courtright Declaration, the
    government also asserts that because Fikre’s “removal from
    the No Fly List is now five years old,” “[w]hat may have
    appeared in the prior appeal to have been a ‘tentative[]’
    discretionary decision is now more clearly an ‘entrenched’
    agency action.” The government also contends this case is
    22                      FIKRE V. FBI
    now moot because we stated that “there is no bright-line rule
    for application of the voluntary cessation doctrine.”
    These arguments do not fly. It is true, of course, that
    there is no bright-line rule for applying the voluntary
    cessation doctrine, Fikre I, 904 F.3d at 1039, and that the
    passage of time may support the conclusion that the
    government has abandoned its allegedly illegal conduct for
    good, see, e.g., Bell v. City of Boise, 
    709 F.3d 890
    , 900 (9th
    Cir. 2013). But for the reasons just explained, the
    government’s decision to remove Fikre from the No Fly List
    remains “an individualized determination untethered to any
    explanation or change in policy, much less an abiding
    change in policy,” notwithstanding the passage of time since
    Fikre’s change of status. Fikre I, 904 F.3d at 1039–40. And
    even though there is no bright-line rule for the application of
    the voluntary cessation doctrine as a general matter, this
    Court did draw some applicable lines for this case in Fikre
    I. Again, absent exceptions not at issue here, “when a court
    decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to
    govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same
    case.” Arizona v. California, 
    460 U.S. 605
    , 618 (1983).
    Applying Fikre I’s analysis, Fikre’s No Fly List claims are
    not moot.
    B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
    The government contends that, even if Fikre’s No Fly
    List due process claims are not moot, we must affirm the
    district court’s dismissal of those claims on the ground that
    
    49 U.S.C. § 46110
     divests the district court of subject matter
    jurisdiction over those claims. Not so.
    Section 46110, as relevant here, concerns judicial review
    of orders issued by the TSA Administrator. Specifically,
    § 46110 states that “a person disclosing a substantial interest
    FIKRE V. FBI                             23
    in an order issued by” the TSA Administrator “under this
    part . . . may apply for review of the order by filing a petition
    for review” in an appropriate court of appeals. 
    49 U.S.C. § 46110
    (a). “The petition must be filed not later than
    60 days after the order is issued,” 
    id.,
     and the court of appeals
    “has exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, amend, modify, or set
    aside any part of the order,” 
    id.
     § 46110(c). So, if Fikre’s
    lawsuit challenges an order by the TSA Administrator, as the
    government contends, then the district court would lack
    jurisdiction over his claims. But if his lawsuit challenges the
    conduct of another agency, such as the Screening Center,
    then § 46110 is inapplicable.
    To support its argument that Fikre’s claims are barred by
    § 46110, the government relies on Kashem v. Barr, 
    941 F.3d 358
     (9th Cir. 2019). Kashem concerned a lawsuit filed by a
    group of individuals on the No Fly List challenging both the
    sufficiency of the procedures for disputing their inclusion on
    the No Fly List and, substantively, their “continued inclusion
    on the No Fly List.” Id. at 364, 367. After they were
    prevented in 2010 from boarding commercial flights, the
    plaintiffs filed grievances through the DHS TRIP process
    and a lawsuit alleging that their apparent inclusion on the No
    Fly List violated their substantive due process rights. See
    Latif v. Holder, 
    686 F.3d 1122
    , 1126 (9th Cir. 2012). 7 As a
    result of the Latif litigation, the government in 2015 revised
    the DHS TRIP procedures. Kashem, 941 F.3d at 367. Those
    revised procedures made the TSA Administrator alone—not
    the Terrorist Screening Center—responsible for issuing a
    7
    The Kashem and Latif appeals involved the same group of
    plaintiffs and the same underlying lawsuit. The plaintiffs in Kashem
    were the four plaintiffs from Latif still on the No Fly List after the
    government reevaluated their statuses in light of Latif. Kashem, 941 F.3d
    at 367 & n.2.
    24                      FIKRE V. FBI
    final order maintaining a traveler on the No Fly List at the
    conclusion of the DHS TRIP process. Id. at 391.
    Evaluating the Kashem plaintiffs’ challenge to their
    continued No Fly List status under those revised procedures,
    the TSA Administrator “issued final orders maintaining each
    plaintiff on the list.” Id. at 367–68. The Kashem plaintiffs—
    the subset of the plaintiffs from Latif who were still on the
    No Fly List—then returned to the district court to challenge
    their continued inclusion on the No Fly List. Id. at 367–68.
    The district court dismissed their substantive due process
    claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing § 46110.
    Id. at 369.
    This Court’s opinion in Kashem affirmed the dismissal.
    Id. at 390–91. We explained that, “[b]efore the 2015
    revisions to the DHS TRIP procedures,” § 46110 did not bar
    district court review of a No Fly List order, because “[the
    Screening Center]—not TSA—actually review[ed] the
    classified intelligence information about travelers and
    decide[d] whether to remove them from the list.” Id. at 390
    (quoting Latif, 686 F.3d at 1128). Under the revised DHS
    TRIP procedures, however, “the TSA Administrator is
    solely responsible for issuing a final order maintaining a
    traveler on the No Fly List” at the conclusion of the DHS
    TRIP process. Id. at 391. The Screening Center submits
    only a recommendation and supporting materials to the TSA
    Administrator, to aid in that decision. Id. So, for an
    individual challenging a No Fly List decision made at the
    conclusion of the DHS TRIP process, Kashem explained,
    “[i]t is no longer the case” that “any remedy must involve
    [the Screening Center].” Id. Kashem thus held that § 46110
    governed the plaintiffs’ suit challenging the TSA
    Administrator’s final order maintaining them on the No Fly
    List. Id.
    FIKRE V. FBI                              25
    The government argues that “Kashem is squarely on
    point.” It is not. Unlike the plaintiffs in Kashem, Fikre is
    not challenging the TSA Administrator’s decision refusing to
    remove him from the No Fly List under the DHS TRIP
    process. He is challenging the Screening Center’s decision
    to place him on the No Fly List in the first place. 8
    As Fikre explains in his briefing before this Court, his
    challenge concerns “the entire watchlisting system that led
    to his listing, including both the initial decision and process
    used to place him on the No Fly List.” (emphasis added).
    That characterization of Fikre’s action is borne out by his
    Seventh Amended Complaint.              With respect to his
    procedural due process claim, Fikre alleges that the
    government “placed Plaintiff’s name in the Terrorist
    Screening Database and on its No Fly List subcomponent”
    and asserts that he “has experienced economic, reputational,
    8
    Before the 2015 changes to the DHS TRIP process, Latif held that
    § 46110 did not divest the district court of jurisdiction to hear a
    substantive due process challenge to inclusion on the No Fly List.
    686 F.3d at 1127. In so holding, Latif observed in a footnote that, “[w]ith
    regard to the applicability of § 46110, there is no meaningful difference
    between the ‘initial placement’ of a name on the List and ‘continued
    placement’ or ‘removal’” because (at that time) “[the Screening Center]
    decide[d] both whether travelers are placed on the List and whether they
    stay on it,” even in the course of the DHS TRIP process. Id. at 1127 n.6;
    see id. at 1125–26. After the 2015 revisions to the DHS TRIP process,
    however, there is a “meaningful difference” between an individual’s
    “initial placement” on the No Fly List, carried out by the Screening
    Center, and an individual’s “continued placement” or “removal”
    pursuant to DHS TRIP, carried out by the TSA Administrator. Id.
    at 1127 n.6. In its brief in Kashem, the government made exactly that
    distinction, arguing that the plaintiffs there were “not challenging their
    inclusion on the No Fly List in the first instance” but rather “their
    continued inclusion on the No Fly List following review under the
    revised DHS TRIP procedures.” Answering Brief for Appellees at 68,
    Kashem v. Barr, 
    941 F.3d 358
     (9th Cir. 2019) (No. 17-35634).
    26                           FIKRE V. FBI
    physical, and liberty harms due to Defendants’ placement of
    his name” on those lists. With respect to his substantive due
    process claim, Fikre alleges, among other things, that the
    government “placed Plaintiff on the TSDB and No Fly List
    despite lacking any reasonable suspicion that Plaintiff is a
    known, suspected, or potential terrorist” and that the
    government relies on “race, ethnicity, national origin,
    religious affiliation, and First Amendment protected
    activities as factors supporting placement on the TSDB and
    No Fly List.” (emphasis added). By contrast, Fikre’s
    complaint mentions the DHS TRIP process very little,
    spending just two paragraphs on Fikre’s engagement with
    that redress process. 9
    In sum, unlike the plaintiffs in Kashem, Fikre does not
    challenge the TSA Administrator’s decision made at the end
    of the DHS TRIP process or seek a court order requiring the
    TSA Administrator to remove him from the No Fly List.
    9
    Fikre’s complaint notes that the TSA reaffirmed in early 2015 that
    his name would remain on the No Fly List. But the complaint does not
    purport to challenge that decision. And although Fikre’s complaint
    mentions the government’s “actions in placing and keeping” him on the
    No Fly List, (emphasis added), our understanding is that those
    references, in the context of Fikre’s full complaint, concern the
    Screening Center’s own authority, independent of the DHS TRIP
    process, to remove individuals from the No Fly List. That independent
    authority is both alleged in the complaint and confirmed by the
    government’s watchlisting overview document, which states that “[the
    Screening Center] regularly reviews data in the TSDB” and that, “[i]f it
    is determined during the quality assurance reviews that a change should
    be made to a record in the TSDB,” the Screening Center “takes steps to
    clarify the record,” including “[a]dditions, modifications, and removals.”
    In any event, to the degree Fikre’s complaint can, contrary to our own
    interpretation, be read to challenge the TSA’s decision not to remove him
    from the No Fly List as part of DHS TRIP review, the district court, and
    this Court, would lack jurisdiction over that aspect of Fikre’s case.
    FIKRE V. FBI                             27
    Rather, his claims concern the Screening Center’s role in
    assigning him to the No Fly List in the first place. As in
    Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security, 
    538 F.3d 1250
    (9th Cir. 2008), “putting [Fikre’s] name on the No-Fly List
    was an ‘order’ of an agency not named in section 46110,”
    and so “the district court retains jurisdiction to review that
    agency’s order,” 
    id. at 1255
    ; see also Mokdad v. Lynch, 
    804 F.3d 807
    , 811–12 (6th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing between a
    plaintiff’s challenge to “the adequacy of the redress
    process,” which “amount[s] to a challenge to a TSA order,”
    and “a direct challenge to his placement by [the Screening
    Center] on the No Fly List”). 10
    C. Stigma-Plus Procedural Due Process Claim
    Fikre also appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
    complaint for failure to state a cognizable stigma-plus
    procedural due process claim. We remand Fikre’s stigma-
    plus procedural due process claim to the district court to
    consider in the first instance whether Fikre states a viable
    procedural due process claim when his placement on the No
    Fly List is also considered.
    To state a procedural due process claim, a plaintiff must
    allege “(1) a liberty or property interest protected by the
    10
    The government also contends that Kashem erred by
    distinguishing, for purposes of § 46110, procedural due process claims
    challenging the sufficiency of DHS TRIP’s procedures and substantive
    challenges to the decision in a final TSA order. 941 F.3d at 391 n.16.
    As a three-judge panel, we would be bound by this distinction in
    Kashem, were it relevant. Scalia v. Emp. Sols. Staffing Grp., LLC,
    
    951 F.3d 1097
    , 1103 (9th Cir. 2020). But it is not. Here, both Fikre’s
    procedural due process and substantive due process claims challenge the
    Screening Center’s decision to place him on the No Fly List, not an order
    of the TSA Administrator.
    28                      FIKRE V. FBI
    Constitution; (2) a deprivation of the interest by the
    government; [and] (3) lack of process.” Wright v. Riveland,
    
    219 F.3d 905
    , 913 (9th Cir. 2000) (alteration in original)
    (quoting Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 
    995 F.2d 898
    ,
    904 (9th Cir. 1993)). Although “[d]amage to reputation
    alone is not actionable,” Hart v. Parks, 
    450 F.3d 1059
    , 1069
    (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Paul v. Davis, 
    424 U.S. 693
    , 711–
    12 (1976)), such reputational harm caused by the
    government can constitute the deprivation of a cognizable
    liberty interest if a plaintiff “was stigmatized in connection
    with the denial of a ‘more tangible’ interest,” 
    id.
     at 1069–70
    (quoting Paul, 
    424 U.S. 701
    –02). Under this “stigma-plus”
    test, a plaintiff who has suffered reputational harm at the
    hands of the government may assert a cognizable liberty
    interest for procedural due process purposes if the plaintiff
    “suffers stigma from governmental action plus alteration or
    extinguishment of ‘a right or status previously recognized by
    state law.’” Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, 
    554 F.3d 1170
    , 1185 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Paul, 
    424 U.S. at 711
    ),
    rev’d in part on other grounds, 
    562 U.S. 29
     (2010)).
    Here, the district court permitted Fikre to amend his
    complaint a seventh time with respect to the theory that he
    suffered a “stigma-plus” reputational injury by virtue of his
    alleged inclusion in the Database. And the district court
    acknowledged that, “if an individual were to suffer a stigma
    as a result of their placement on the No Fly List and then
    were denied the ability to travel due to the No Fly List,” that
    allegation might state a viable stigma-plus claim. But the
    district court held the No Fly List-related claims moot and
    so viewed the “only stigmatic injury for which Mr. Fikre
    ha[d] established standing” as “the 2016 reputational injury
    he allegedly suffered as a result of the Mecca and San Diego
    trips,” stemming from his inclusion in the Database. With
    the No Fly List claims out of the case, the district court
    FIKRE V. FBI                        29
    concluded that any restriction on Fikre’s ability to travel was
    “far too attenuated in both time and circumstance to be
    deemed as having occurred ‘in connection with’ his 2016
    reputational injury,” and so dismissed the stigma-plus
    claims.
    But we have concluded that the district court erred by
    dismissing as moot Fikre’s claims pertaining to his
    placement on the No Fly List. See supra Part II.A.
    Considering Fikre’s placement on the No Fly List and his
    alleged presence in the broader Database together, both the
    reputational injuries and the “plus” factors at issue in Fikre’s
    case may be more numerous and more substantial than the
    district court believed.
    Generally, “a federal appellate court does not consider
    an issue not passed upon below,” although we have
    discretion to do so “where the issue presented is a purely
    legal one and the record below has been fully developed.”
    Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc., 
    755 F.3d 1089
    , 1094 (9th Cir.
    2014) (quoting Quinn v. Robinson, 
    783 F.2d 776
    , 814 (9th
    Cir. 1986)). Because both the district court’s decision and
    the parties’ briefs on appeal focused their stigma-plus
    analysis on the stigma and plus factors related to Fikre’s
    2016 reputational injuries stemming from his status as an
    individual listed in the Database—not on those factors as
    they related to the ramifications of his previous No Fly List
    status—we choose not to exercise that discretion in this case.
    We therefore vacate the district court’s dismissal of Fikre’s
    stigma-plus claim and remand for the district court to
    consider whether Fikre has a viable procedural due process
    claim when his No Fly List-related injuries are also
    considered.
    30                       FIKRE V. FBI
    III.    Scope of Remand
    We briefly clarify what claims will be before the district
    court on remand.
    Fikre’s Seventh Amended Complaint asserted two
    causes of action—a Fifth Amendment procedural due
    process claim and a Fifth Amendment substantive due
    process claim. Each of those causes of action pertains both
    to his past placement on the No Fly List and to his alleged
    current inclusion in the Database.
    Fikre raised two issues in his opening brief on appeal.
    First, Fikre challenged the district court’s dismissal as moot
    of his No Fly List-related claims. Second, Fikre challenged
    the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of his
    stigma-plus procedural due process claim, relating to his
    alleged inclusion in the Database. Because Fikre did not
    challenge the district court’s dismissal of his substantive due
    process claim stemming from his inclusion in the Database,
    any challenge to that decision has been waived. See, e.g.,
    Shivkov v. Artex Risk Sols., Inc., 
    974 F.3d 1051
    , 1061 (9th
    Cir. 2020).
    But by appealing the district court’s mootness ruling in
    its entirety, Fikre necessarily preserved both his substantive
    and non-stigma-related procedural due process challenges to
    his placement on the No Fly List. The district court ruled on
    neither challenge on the merits, given its mootness
    determination. By challenging that determination, Fikre was
    requesting reinstatement of his operative complaint as to
    both due process challenges to his placement on the No Fly
    List; by reversing as to mootness, we confirm that the merits
    of both challenges as alleged in the operative complaint were
    properly before the district court and so are to be decided.
    FIKRE V. FBI                        31
    The government nonetheless suggested at oral argument
    that Fikre entirely relinquished any substantive due process
    claim on appeal. To support that contention, the government
    pointed to Fikre’s statement in his reply brief, in response to
    the government’s jurisdictional arguments, that his appeal
    “does not concern Fikre’s substantive due process claims”
    because the district court dismissed them as moot, and that,
    “[a]s relevant to this appeal, Fikre challenges the No Fly List
    (and the broader TSDB) on procedural due process
    grounds.” That statement did not waive Fikre’s substantive
    due process claim as it pertains to his placement on the No
    Fly List. Rather, as Fikre’s reply brief recognized, the merits
    of Fikre’s No Fly List-specific claims, whether substantive
    or procedural, are not before this Court because the district
    court dismissed them as moot and never ruled on them
    substantively. Therefore, “[a]s relevant to this appeal” on
    the merits, only the district court’s dismissal of Fikre’s
    separate stigma-plus procedural due process claim was
    implicated.
    As explained, we now hold that the district court erred
    by dismissing Fikre’s No Fly List claims as moot and that
    § 46110 does not divest the district court of jurisdiction over
    those claims. Both Fikre’s substantive due process and non-
    stigma-related procedural due process claims pertaining to
    his placement by the Screening Center on the No Fly List, as
    well as his stigma-plus procedural due process claims
    pertaining both to his placement on the No Fly List and his
    alleged placement in the Database, will be before the district
    court on remand. Any substantive due process claim
    pertaining to his placement in the Database will not.
    IV.    Conclusion
    We reverse the district court’s dismissal on mootness
    grounds of Fikre’s substantive due process and non-stigma-
    32                      FIKRE V. FBI
    related procedural due process No Fly List claims. We also
    vacate the district court’s dismissal of Fikre’s stigma-plus
    procedural due process claim and remand to the district court
    to consider, in the first instance, whether Fikre has stated a
    viable stigma-plus procedural due process claim considering
    both his past placement on the No Fly List and his alleged
    inclusion in the Database.
    REVERSED, VACATED, and REMANDED.