UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHINA UNICOM (AMERICAS) No. 22-70029 OPERATIONS LIMITED,

Petitioner, OPINION v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Communications Commission

Argued and Submitted February 15, 2023 Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed December 24, 2024 Before: Carlos T. Bea, Daniel P. Collins, and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Collins; Dissent by Judge Bea 2 CHINA UNICOM (AMERICAS) OPS. V. FCC

SUMMARY *

Communications Act of 1934

The panel denied a petition for review brought by China Unicorn (Americas) Operations Limited (“CUA”) challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) revocation of certificates authorizing CUA to provide domestic and international telecommunications services. In revoking the certificates, which were issued pursuant to § 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC found that CUA had failed to dispel the national security concerns arising from its ultimate Chinese government ownership and that CUA had demonstrated a lack of candor and trustworthiness in its representations to the FCC. Applying Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024), the panel reviewed de novo whether the FCC correctly interpreted its authority under the Communications Act. The panel held that the statute’s grant of authority to “issue” certificates to telecommunications carriers must be understood as carrying with it an implied incidental authority to revoke such certificates. Also, there was no indication in the statutory text or structure that Congress denied the FCC any relevant authority to revoke a carrier’s § 214 certificate. CUA contended that the revocation order should be set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act. The panel * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. CHINA UNICOM (AMERICAS) OPS. V. FCC 3

held that the FCC’s decision to revoke CUA’s certificates based on national security concerns was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, and was not arbitrary and capricious. In addition, the FCC’s alternative ground for revoking CUA’s certificates—that it had exhibited a lack of candor and trustworthiness with the FCC—was also amply supported and was not arbitrary and capricious. The panel also rejected CUA’s contention that the FCC failed to follow the requisite procedures prior to revoking CUA’s § 214 certificates. Judge Bea dissented. He disagreed with the majority’s view that the FCC’s statutory power to grant § 214 certificates under the Communications Act of 1934 necessarily implied the power to revoke such certificates solely upon its own volition. He would grant CUA’s petition, vacate the FCC’s order, and remand with instruction for the FCC to reinstate CUA’s § 214 certificates.

COUNSEL Keith Bradley (argued), Squire Patton Boggs LLP, Denver, Colorado; Jeffrey M. Walker, Squire Patton Boggs LLP, Columbus, Ohio; Robert E. Stup Jr. and Paul C. Besozzi, Squire Patton Boggs LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Petitioner. Matthew J. Dunne (argued), Counsel; Jacob M. Lewis, Deputy General Counsel; P. Michele Ellison, General Counsel; Federal Communications Commission, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Washington, D.C.; Casen B. Ross and Sharon Swingle, Attorneys, Appellate Staff; Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondents. 4 CHINA UNICOM (AMERICAS) OPS. V. FCC

OPINION COLLINS, Circuit