Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GINSBURG.
William Armstrong petitions for review of the order of the Federal Aviation Administration determining that an “emergency” existed, entitling it immediately to revoke his private pilot certificate. We dismiss the petition as moot.
I. Background
On October 10, 2006, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration issued an order revoking William Armstrong’s private pilot certificate, alleging that Armstrong had violated numerous federal aviation regulations by knowingly flying an airplane that was not airworthy and performing repairs he was not authorized to do. The Administrator determined that an “emergency” existed, permitting her to impose the order without first providing Armstrong an opportunity to respond to these allegations. 49 U.S.C. § 44709(c). The emergency determination also prevented Armstrong from obtaining a stay of the order while he appealed it to the National Transportation Safety Board. Id. § 44709(e)(2).
Armstrong did appeal the order to the NTSB, but because he did not request review of the underlying emergency determination within two days of receiving the order, he forfeited his right to an administrative appeal of that determination. Id. § 44709(e)(3). He instead petitioned this court for review of the emergency determination. See 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a).
*1296
While Armstrong’s petition here was pending, an Administrative Law Judge affirmed all the violations found by the Administrator but reduced the sanction to a 10-month suspension of his private pilot certificate.
Administrator v. Armstrong,
No. SE-17854,
II. Analysis
The emergency determination of which Armstrong seeks review prevented him from obtaining a stay of the revocation order while his appeal was pending before the NTSB. Once the NTSB resolved his appeal, the emergency determination ceased to have any effect.
See Robinson v. NTSB,
We cannot deem Armstrong’s case capable of repetition because he has not made “a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality.”
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
Nor did Armstrong’s case “evade review”; that occurs only when “the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration.”
Weinstein,
First, Armstrong did not file his petition for review until 79 days after the Administrator’s order issued, which was 19 days after the period for filing a petition for review of an order of the FAA had expired.
*
He later filed a motion to extend the time to file his reply brief by two weeks. A litigant cannot credibly claim his case “evades review” when he himself has delayed its disposition.
See City of Houston v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev.,
Second, Armstrong never filed a motion, either before the NTSB or in this court, to stay the administrative proceeding. We join every other circuit to have considered the matter and conclude that a litigant who could have but did not file for a stay to prevent a counter-party from taking any action that would moot his case may not, barring exceptional circumstances, later claim his case evaded review.
See Iowa Prot. & Advocacy Servs. v. Tanager, Inc.,
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Armstrong’s petition for review is moot. It is therefore
Dismissed.
Notes
A pilot may petition for review more than 60 days after the issuance of an order if he has "reasonable grounds” for his delay. 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). Because we dismiss this case as moot, we do not decide whether Armstrong had such "reasonable grounds.” Nor do we express a view upon whether Armstrong's failure to exhaust his administrative appeals independently deprived this court of jurisdiction to hear his petition. See id. § 46110(d).