ENFORCE21661 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.._. ~. .,.... ..,. ~ ,-_., .. _..~ ., ~ .~ ,., _.,, .,,~,,.r u, v. an. . w r T_3_T.A 9c-90R, 96-91R postdates the Regional Director's decision. We rn not aat~sider the State court's decision *~ to a new factual develogi~ent. Rather it represents a State jdicial resolution of the precise issue identified by the 06M Deputy Director as critical to resolution of that part of the :atoms' citizen ac~laint regara;~; subsidence. There has been no skuiwing that the evidence presented in State cx3urt differed in any saterial way from the evidence that was available to the Regional Director at the time he issued the derasiai under appeal. ~ would restrict our mnsiderati~s to only t`~at evidence available to the Regional Director at the time he issued his decision. We do mt 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 appeal within its jurisdiction, "is not so limited in the scope of appellate review and decisionm3king a6 to be re iix~ed to affit~ decisions by suboLdinate officers and ec~loyees merely because they are supported by "substantial evidence" or are perceived not to be aH~itrary and/or capricious, paztiailarly whe_*~e a preponderatsce of the evidence leads to a different result. The Secretary, as chief exeaitive officer of the Depart<ietst * ~ •~ has plenary authority t0 review de novo all official actions arxi to decide appeals from surti ackiors cos the basis of a pzeponderance 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 Marsh 3, 1849, 9 Stat. 395." United States FY.9ts & Wildlife Service, 72 TBIA 218, 220 (1983). If, for exa[cgale, Ln this case, the Tatums had ODID2 forward on a~p~ with affidavits frcm the ~I officials who e)tam;TL~ their house stating that those officials now believed that subsidence caused damage to the Tatums' house, under t14i's theory the Board could not consider such evidence because "it was mt part of the reoard before either Dim or OStt" rd~tn they issued their decisions. Clearly, the P,oard, acting far the Secretary, is not so limited in ire decisi Suc3i evidence, when viewed along with all the other evidence of rewrd, would support a fist that a ~~~*~~ of evidencx estah~t4~ that subsidence damaged the house and that•a violation of State regulations occurred. SO to with the State spurt decision in this case. ~e Tatums sutzni.ttcii the State court decision oa appeal in support of their position that subsidea~ce had damaged their base. Prior tc issuance of our decision, GSM raised t70 objecti~ to its consideration. We concluded that the State court decision, along with all the other evidence of rea~rd, established by a prepondezance of the evidence that a violation had ooasrred. 3/ 3/ ~! states in its raspcxsse to the Teruel' opposition that the Board used an ~ nrY„-ray legal etandasd whets it 3Fplied the px~pOnr3aranr-ro Of evidesre standard "L^. Leviewinq the Pegional Director's decision," Lut that it believes we should have applied the arbitrar,+ and capricious standard 6