Dr. Rahinah IBRAHIM, an Individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; Jeh Johnson, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Terrorist Screening Center; Christopher M. Piehota, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; Federal Bureau of Investigation; James Comey, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General; Andrew G. McCabe, in His Official Capacity as Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's National Security Branch; National Counterterrorism Center; Nicholas Rasmussen, in His Official Capacity as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; Department of State; John Kerry, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State; United States of America, Defendant-Appellees [2016]

Version 1 of 4

Reference to Dr. Rahinah IBRAHIM, an Individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; Jeh Johnson, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Terrorist Screening Center; Christopher M. Piehota, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; Federal Bureau of Investigation; James Comey, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General; Andrew G. McCabe, in His Official Capacity as Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's National Security Branch; National Counterterrorism Center; Nicholas Rasmussen, in His Official Capacity as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; Department of State; John Kerry, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State; United States of America, Defendant-Appellees (835 F.3d 1048) strengthens a Counterterrorism Law answer because the case reflects the principle that Use this case as a source-verified research checkpoint rather than an invented rule statement. The ratio should be extracted from the linked opinion by identifying the legal test applied, the facts treated as decisive, and the court's stated reason for the outcome. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as What Counterterrorism Law issue does the source record raise, and how should a student verify the rule, holding, and factual trigger from the linked opinion? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.