[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11984 ____________________

ORGANIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL AVICULTURISTS, INC., LINEOLATED PARAKEET SOCIETY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-23536-KMW ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-11984 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 03/14/2025 Page: 2 of 32

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11984

Before ROSENBAUM, ABUDU, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge: As it turns out, a bird in the hand is not worth as much as two in the bush. At least, that’s what Congress decided when it enacted the Wild Exotic Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (“Act”), 16 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq., and protected birds in the bush (the wild) by limiting when they can be in the hand (domestically imported). To promote exotic-bird conservation, the Act prohibits the importa- tion of certain exotic bird species into the United States. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 4902, 4904. But a person may petition to add a species to a list of those approved for import, so long as the species meets certain criteria. Id. §§ 4905, 4909. Plaintiffs (“Aviculturists”) are organizations that represent “aviculturists,” people who care for or breed birds. The Avicultur- ists sought to import two captive-bred species of parrots, the Cac- tus conure and the green form of the Lineolated parakeet, from certain European countries. But the Act prohibits those species’ importation. So the Aviculturists petitioned the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) to add the two parrot species to the list of species approved for import under the Act. There was a small catch, though. Rather than petitioning the Service to add these two parrot species as a whole to the list, the Aviculturists petitioned to add the species, but only those members of the species that have been captive-bred in certain European countries. USCA11 Case: 23-11984 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 03/14/2025 Page: 3 of 32

23-11984 Opinion of the Court 3

The Service denied the Aviculturists’ petitions as invalid. It said that the Act’s implementing regulations didn’t allow the Ser- vice to approve species in a country-by-country manner. The Aviculturists sued, contending that the Service must add captive-bred species to the exemption list on a country-by- country basis under the Act. Because the Service rejected the Avi- culturists’ petitions asking it to do just that, the Aviculturists as- serted, the Service’s determination that the Aviculturists’ petitions were invalid violated both the Act and Sections 706(1) and 706(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706. The district court dismissed the Aviculturists’ claims with prejudice. It reasoned that the text of the Act instructs the Service to consider the addition of different “species” as a whole to the list of approved species, rather than the additi