Laserfiche WebLink
Even if consideration of the merits of OSM's petition were appropriate, the agency has utterly <br />failed to establish any "extraordinary circumstance" which might justify reconsideration of the <br />Boazd's decision. The petition's first azgument is fundamentally wrong on the law. OSM's second <br />azgument is completely inconsistent with the agency's first statement of error, and it ignores the <br />important points that (1) the administrative record contains ample evidence apart from the state court <br />decision to produce a preponderance in the Tatum's favor on the subsidence issue and (2) the <br />Regional Director had before him at the time of his informal review decision essentially the same <br />material evidence that the Tatums produced in their state court litigation. <br />In the balance of this response, the Tatums will briefly discuss each of their grounds for <br />opposing OSM's petition for reconsideration and stay. They begin with the Boazd's November 12, <br />1999, order. <br />I. <br />The November 12. 1999, Order Precludes Consideration of the Grounds <br />Raised in OSM's Petition <br />By order dated August 17, 1999, the Boazd directed OSM to prepaze and submit a brief <br />stating the agency position on the state court decision. OSM responded with three successive <br />motions for enlazgement of time, then failed to file a brief within the time sought in its last request. <br />On November 12, 1999, nine days after expiration of the latest deadline OSM requested, the Boazd <br />entered an order denying all of OSM's scheduling motions and specifying further that "any <br />submission made by counsel in response to our order after the date of this order will not become a <br />part of the record in this case." The Boazd reiterated the point in announcing its decision on the <br />merits of the Tatum's appeal. Jim & Ann Tatum, 151 IBLA at 307. <br />2 <br />