Arash Alex Abbassi, an individual v. National Transportation Safety Board

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARASH ALEX ABBASSI, an individual,
Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD and MICHAEL P.
HUERTA, Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration,
Respondents.
No. 17-71968
NTSB-1 No. SE-30147
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
National Transportation Safety Board
Submitted August 29, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, BYBEE, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Arash Alex Abbassi appeals a final order of the National Transportation and
Safety Board (NTSB) revoking his pilot and flight instructor certificates for
FILED
AUG 31 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

making intentionally false statements in records used to show compliance with
aviation certification requirements, in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 61.59(a)(2). We
have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 1153(a).
The NTSB did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Abbassi’s stamped
entries in his student’s logbook (falsely certifying the student’s flight training)
were material. The NTSB’s conclusion that the stamped entries “had the natural
tendency to influence, or [were] capable of influencing” the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Janka v. Dep’t of Transp., 925 F.2d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.
1991) (quoting Cassis v. Helms, 737 F.2d 545, 547 (6th Cir. 1984)), was supported
by substantial evidence, including the testimony of FAA expert witness David
Voelker. Given Voelker’s testimony that the NTSB could rely on such false
entries for future decisions, as well as evidence that Abbassi had routinely used
such stamped signatures at his flight school, the NTSB could reasonably conclude
that the stamped entries were material despite the lack of direct evidence that the
FAA authorized the use of stamped signatures.1
1 The ALJ did not abuse his discretion by excluding the FAA advisory
circular on electronic signatures because it was irrelevant to Abbassi’s dispute
regarding the FAA’s acceptance of stamped signatures. See Atlantic-Pacific Const.
Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 52 F.3d 260, 263 (9th Cir. 1995) (setting forth the abuse of
discretion standard of review).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Further, the NTSB did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Abbassi’s
hand-signed entry (falsely certifying the student’s aeronautical knowledge and
ground training) was material. That finding was also supported by substantial
evidence in the record, including Voelker’s testimony that the FAA could rely on
the false entry for future decisions. Additionally, Abbassi’s claim that his student
had received the relevant ground training from someone else is not relevant, as it
would not have made the endorsement less likely to influence the FAA, and thus
would not have made Abbassi’s endorsement less material. See Janka, 925 F.2d at
1150.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --