C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER XII—TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY › SUBCHAPTER D—MARITIME AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY › PART 1572—CREDENTIALING AND SECURITY THREAT ASSESSMENTS › Subpart B—Standards for Security Threat Assessments

49 C.F.R. § 1572.107

Other analyses

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) TSA may determine that an applicant poses a security threat based on a search of the following databases:

(1) Interpol and other international databases, as appropriate.

(2) Terrorist watchlists and related databases.

(3) Any other databases relevant to determining whether an applicant poses, or is suspected of posing, a security threat, or that confirm an applicant's identity.

(b) TSA may also determine that an applicant poses a security threat, if the search conducted under this part reveals extensive foreign or domestic criminal convictions, a conviction for a serious crime not listed in 49 CFR 1572.103, or a period of foreign or domestic imprisonment that exceeds 365 consecutive days.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: Saadiq Long v. Pamela Bondi (4th Cir. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Saadiq Long v. Pamela Bondi (4th Cir. 2025). · cites it 4× “The letters explain that TSA “has determined that [Long] may not be eligible” for either credential “for the reasons set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 1572.107 (a),” ECF No. 55 at 1, 6, under which “TSA may determine that an applicant poses a security threat based on a search of .”
Saadiq Long v. Pamela Bondi (4th Cir. 2025). · cites it 4× “The letters explain that TSA “has determined that [Long] may not be eligible” for either credential “for the reasons set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 1572.107 (a),” ECF No. 55 at 1, 6, under which “TSA may determine that an applicant poses a security threat based on a search of .”
Al Seraji v. McAleenan (D.D.C. 2020). “¶ 46 , an official letter stating that the plaintiff “was denied [a] TWIC [card] because the TSA [had] decided that he was a security threat under 49 C.F.R. § 1572.107 (a)[,]” id. ¶ 48 . The plaintiff was, therefore, unable to accept his contingent job offer with the shipping…”
Mohamed Seraji v. Alejandro Mayorkas (D.C. Cir. 2021). “See 49 C.F.R. § 1572.107 (a). Because of Al Seraji’s failure to secure a TWIC card, a job offer that had been made to him was withdrawn.”
United States v. Deron Nixon (3rd Cir. 2026). “” 49 C.F.R. § 1572.107 (b); 49 C.F.R. § 383.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.