[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-395868-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-395868-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","appeal-no23-200-petition-for-rehearing-en-banc","APPEAL NO.23 -200 - PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC","","Petition for rehearing en banc in APPEAL NO. 23-200 before the Supreme Court of the United States. Byungmin Chae, the petitioner-appellant, requests Supreme Court review of a federal circuit judgment and challenges the denial by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of credit for question 27 in the Customs Broker License Examination dated April 25, 2018. The petition argues CBP’s grading decision lacks substantial evidence and fails to reflect reasoned decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/","Exam",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/appeal-no23-200-petition-for-rehearing-en-banc/395868/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/appeal-no23-200-petition-for-rehearing-en-banc/395868.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"dawugda","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-08","2026-09-26",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What does the petitioner ask the Supreme Court to review?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Byungmin Chae asks the Supreme Court to review the federal circuit’s judgment related to CBP’s denial of credit for question 27 on the April 25, 2018 Customs Broker License Examination.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Which examination and question are central to the petition?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The petition concerns the Customs Broker License Examination (CBLE) dated April 25, 2018, specifically the denial of credit for question number 27.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"On what legal basis does the petitioner challenge CBP’s decision?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The petition contends the CBP grading decision lacks substantial evidence and does not satisfy reasoned decision-making requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},395868,1790650249,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,95,100,105,110,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":33,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":145,"read_time":146,"preview_page_count":4},3985747870947,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","APPEAL NO.23 -200 IN THE SUPREME COURT OE.FILEDTHE UNITED STATESNOV 172023  \nEEICEOF THE CLERK  \nU  \nUPREAECOUIRZIL9  \n的  \nBYUNGMIN CHAEPetitioner.Appellant  \nJANETYELLEN.THEUNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THETREASURY  \nALEJANDRO MAYORKAS.THE UNITED STATES SECRETARYOF THE HOMELAND SECURITY.  \nTHE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURYUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE HOMELANDSECURITY.  \nAND THE UNITED STATESRespondents.Appellees  \n# PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC\n\nRECEIVED  \nDEC 182023  \nOFFICE OF THE CLERK  \nSUPREME COURT,U.S.  \nBYUNGMIN CHAE3638 S.205TH STREETELKHORN,NE 68022TEL:646.678.0066EMAIL:benchaeny@gmail.com  \n# QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW\n\nWhich of the following mail articles are not subject toexamination or inspection by Customs?  \nA.Bona-fide gifts with an aggregate fair retail value notexceeding $800 in the country of shipment  \nB.Mail packages addressed to officials of the U.S.Government containing merchandise  \nC.Diplomatic pouches bearing the official seal of Franceand certified as only containing documents  \nD.Personal and household effects of military and civilianpersonnel returning to the United States upon thecompletion of extended duty abroad  \nE.Plant material imported by mail for purposes ofimmediate exportation by mail  \n# LIST OF ALL PARTTES\n\nPETITIONER:BYUNGMIN CHAE  \nEXAMINEE FOR THE CUSTOMS BROKER LICENSEIN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2018  \nRESPONDENT:  \nJANET YELLEN,THE UNITED STATES SECRETARYOF THE TREASURY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS,THEUNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE HOMELANDSECURITY  \n# THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THETREASURY\n\nTHE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THEHOMELAND SECURITY,AND THE UNITED STATES  \n# LIST OF RELATED PROCEEDTNGS\n\n1.THE UNITED STATES COURT OF  \nINTERNATIONAL TRADE COURT NO.20-00316BYUNGMIN CHAEv.JANET YELLEN THE  \nDEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,ALEJANDROMAYORKAS,THE DEPARTMENT OFHOMELAND SECURITY AND THE UNITEDSTATESJUDGEMENT ENTERED:JUNE6,2022  \n2.THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FORFEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT NO.22-2017BYUNGMIN CHAEv.JANET YELLEN THE  \nDEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,ALEJANDROMAYORKAS,THE DEPARTMENT OFHOMELAND SECURITY AND THE UNITEDSTATESJUDGEMENT ENTERED:APRIL 25,2023  \n3.THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FORFEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT NO.22-2017BYUNGMIN CHAEv.JANET YELLEN THE  \nDEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,ALEJANDROMAYORKAS,THE DEPARTMENT OFHOMELAND SECURITY AND THE UNITEDSTATES  \nJUDGEMENT ON PETTTTON FOR.PANELREHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANCENTERED:JUNE 12,2023  \n# TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nQuestion presented for review  \ni  \nList of All Parties  \n11  \nList of Related Proceedings  \nV  \nTable of Cited Authorities  \nCitations of Opinions and Orders  \n.V  \nBasis for Jurisdiction  \n工  \nStatement of the Case2  \nReply Arguments6  \n1.The Coverage of the9customs territory  \n2.The Diplomatic bag  \n10  \nConclusion  \n11  \nCertificate of good faith bypetitioner  \n12  \nAppendix  \n13  \n# TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES\n\nCASES  \nCb.13.1996S,20CIT227,228,Slip.Op.9636F6312005lserv.US,374F.Sup.2d1276,1280(CITMa6Germscheidv.U.S.,19CIT706.708-9,888F.Sup8p.1197,1200(1995)  \nKenny Snow,401F3d1359,1361(Fed.Cir20060’Quinnv.U.S.,24CIT324,325,100F.Supp.2d12,7136,11382000)  \n# STATUTES\n\n19U.S.C.§1641(b)(2)1,619U.S.C.§1641(e)(3)8  \nREGULATIONS19C.F.R.§111.11(a)(4)619C.F.R.§111.16619C.F.R.§101.1919C.F.R.§7.2919C.F.R.§148.83(a)10  \n# CITATIONS OF OPINIONS AND ORDERS\n\n## 1.The opinion of the Court of International Trade\n\nAppeals appears on that court's web site as Slip Op.22-59 as “chae vs secretary of the treasury”https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/content/slip-opinions-2022  \n## 2.The order of the court of appeals for the federal circuit\n\nappears on that court's web site as Court No 22-2017 withthe docket number 29 dated on April 252023https://ecf.cafc.uscourts.gov/n/beam/servlet/TransportRoom  \n## 3.The order of the court of appeals for the federal circuit\n\nappears on that court's web site as Court No 22-2017 withthe docket number 35 dated on June 122023  \nhttps://ecf.cafc.uscourts.gov/n/beam/servlet/TransportRoom  \n# BASIS FOR JURIS","cbCaihgNYxENTJpp","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihgNYxENTJpp","pdf",2282614,68,"English","# Question Presented for Review\n# List of All Parties\n# List of Related Proceedings\n# Table of Contents\n# Table of Cited Authorities\n# Basis for Jurisdiction\n# Statement of the Case","[{\"question\":\"What does the petitioner ask the Supreme Court to review?\",\"answer\":\"Byungmin Chae asks the Supreme Court to review the federal circuit’s judgment related to CBP’s denial of credit for question 27 on the April 25, 2018 Customs Broker License Examination.\"},{\"question\":\"Which examination and question are central to the petition?\",\"answer\":\"The petition concerns the Customs Broker License Examination (CBLE) dated April 25, 2018, specifically the denial of credit for question number 27.\"},{\"question\":\"On what legal basis does the petitioner challenge CBP’s decision?\",\"answer\":\"The petition contends the CBP grading decision lacks substantial evidence and does not satisfy reasoned decision-making requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act.\"}]","APPEAL NO.23 -200 - PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC | PDF",1790425597,171]