Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rosita M. CHARLES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OFFICE OF NAVAJO & HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION, an Administrative Agency of the United States, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
The Office of Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation (“ONHIR”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Rosita M. Charles (“R. Charles”) reversing the ONHIR’s denial of the application for relocation benefits and remanding the case to the ONHIR for an award of relocation assistance benefits. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Brunozzi v. Cable Commc’ns, Inc., 851 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 2017). We review the ONHIR’s decision to determine if it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, ․ otherwise not in accordance with law,” or “unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment and affirm the ONHIR’s denial of relocation assistance benefits.
The “substantial and recurring contacts” standard applied by the district court is no longer the correct standard under current regulations. The correct standard is “intent to reside combined with manifestations of that intent.” 49 Fed. Reg. 22,277.
Under the correct standard, the ONHIR’s determination to deny benefits to R. Charles was supported by substantial evidence. It is undisputed that R. Charles became a head of household in 1983. In 1983, R. Charles joined the Many Farms Chapter. R. Charles testified that she continued to visit her aunt’s residence in Teesto. However, the ONHIR reasonably relied upon R. Charles’ voluntary decision to join the Many Farms Chapter at the time she became a head of household. The ONHIR concluded that R. Charles failed to meet her burden of proving that, once she became a head of household, she was a “legal resident” of Teesto, which was designated Hopi Partitioned Land. 25 C.F.R. §§ 700.97(a), 700.147(b). In light of the substantial deference afforded to such agency determinations, we observe no reversible error in the ONHIR’s conclusion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO AFFIRM THE ONHIR.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-17258
Decided: May 28, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)