the final decision regarding his delisting request issued in 2013. Because Zevallos had not previously seen this evidence, he insists he could not adequately contest his ongoing designation. Zevallos forfeited this argument by not raising it in the district court. Potter, 558 F.3d at 549-50. He also points to the questionnaire Treasury asked him to answer in 2009 once the agency realized he still wanted a decision on his delisting request, and complains that Treasury’s 2013 decision did not address any of the topics about which the 2009 questionnaire inquired. This argument is doubly forfeited: Zevallos did not make it to the district court; and on appeal he made it for the first time in his reply brief. See Russell v. Harman Int’l Indus., Inc., 773 F.3d 253, 255 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Zevallos insists that Treasury’s
holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited holding that an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived holding that issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are not reviewable holding that we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived