ENFORCE20916 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IBLA 96-90R, 96-91R postdates the Regional Director's decision. We ck~ not consider the State court's decision to be a new factual development. Rather it represents a State judicial resolution of the precise issue identified by the CET1 Deputy Director as critical to resolution of that part of the Tatums' citizen ccs~laint regarding subsidence. There has been no showing that the evidence presented in State mart differed in any material way from the evidence that was available to the Regional Director at the time he issued the decision under appeal. CH~i would restrict our consideration to only that evidence available to the Regional Director at the time he issued his decision. We do not believe such a restriction is warranted. As we have stated, the Board, delegated the authority to act as fully and finally as might the Secretary in deciding appeals within its jurisdiction, "is not so limited in the snipe of appellate review and decisiormvk;ng as to be required to affirm decisions by subordinate officers and employees merely because they are supported by "substantial evidence" or are perceived not to be arbitrary and/or capricious, particularly where a preponderance of the evidence leads to a different result. The Secretary, as chief executive officer of the Department * * *, has plenary authority to review de novo all official actions and to decide appeals from such actions on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence in cases involving substantive rights, or on the basis of the public policy or public interest in cases involving the exercise of discretion. Act of March 3, 1849, 9 Stat. 395." United States Fish & Wildlife Service, 72 IBIA 218, 220 (1963). If, for example, in this case, the Tatums had come forward on appeal with affidavits from the ~I officials who PY~~*+ed their house stating that those officials now believed that subsidence caused damage to the Tatums' house, under AI's theory the Board could not consider such evidence because "it was not part of the record before either II~ or CH~i" when they issued their decisions. Clearly, the Board, acting for the Secretary, is not so limited in its decisionmakinq. Such evidence, when viewed along with all the other evidence of record, would support a finding that a preponderance of evidence established that subsidence damaged the house and that a violation of State regulations occurred. So to with the State mart decision in this case. The Tatluns sukmitted the State mart decision on appeal in support of their position that subsidence had damaged their home. Prior to issuance of our decision, (L4I raised no objection to its consideration. We concluded that the State court decision, along with all the other evidence of record, established by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation had occurred. 3/ 3/ CQi states in its response to the Tatums' opposition that the Board used an incorrect legal standard when it applied the preponderance of evidence standard "in reviewing the Regional Director's decision," but that it believes w~ should have applied the arbitrary and capricious standard 6