25 CFR 2.4 - Officials who may decide appeals

Cite as25 CFR 2.4
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
37 practice notes
  • Villegas v. United States, CV–12–0001–EFS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of Washington
    • August 5, 2013
    ...Regulations establishes the chain of authority to decide appeal of agency decisions, including agency inaction. See, e.g.,25 C.F.R. §§ 2.3, 2.4(a), 2.6(a) & 2.8. As was the issue with his original Complaint, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he properly raised his vaguely-pled APA violati......
  • Western Shoshone Business Council For and on Behalf of Western Shoshone Tribe of Duck Valley Reservation v. Babbitt, 92-4062
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • July 27, 1993
    ...The regulations regarding appeals from BIA decisions provide that a decision made by an Area Director may be appealed to the IBIA, 25 C.F.R. Sec. 2.4(e), and that the IBIA is the final authority for the Department of the Interior on administrative actions by BIA officials. 43 C.F.R. Page 10......
  • Crawford-Hall v. United States, Case No. 2:17-cv-01616-SVW-AFM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • February 13, 2019
    ...Decision"). See AR0258.3425-66. In the 2017 Decision, Principal Deputy Roberts concluded:Pursuant to the authority delegated to me by 25 C.F.R. § 2.4(c), I affirm the Regional Director's December 24, 2014 decision to take approximately 1,427.28 acres of land in trust for the Santa Ynez Band......
  • Sokaogon Chippewa Community v. Babbitt, 95-C-659-C.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. Western District of Wisconsin
    • June 11, 1996
    ...— Indian Affairs (other than the deputy in charge of Indian Education Programs) are appealable to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals. 25 C.F.R. § 2.4(e). An appealable decision is not considered a final departmental decision subject to judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 704 unless the offic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
35 cases
  • Crawford-Hall v. United States, Case No. 2:17-cv-01616-SVW-AFM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • February 13, 2019
    ...Decision"). See AR0258.3425-66. In the 2017 Decision, Principal Deputy Roberts concluded:Pursuant to the authority delegated to me by 25 C.F.R. § 2.4(c), I affirm the Regional Director's December 24, 2014 decision to take approximately 1,427.28 acres of land in trust for the Santa Ynez Band......
  • Villegas v. United States, No. CV–12–0001–EFS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of Washington
    • August 5, 2013
    ...Regulations establishes the chain of authority to decide appeal of agency decisions, including agency inaction. See, e.g.,25 C.F.R. §§ 2.3, 2.4(a), 2.6(a) & 2.8. As was the issue with his original Complaint, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he properly raised his vaguely-pled APA violati......
  • Villegas v. United States, No. CV–12–0001–EFS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of Washington
    • January 30, 2013
    ...Regulations establishes the chain of authority to decide appeal of agency decisions, including agency inaction. See, e.g.,25 C.F.R. §§ 2.3, 2.4(a), 2.6(a), 2.8. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he properly raised his allegations of APA violations at any level of BIA review, much less exh......
  • Begay v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M. (pnm), No. CIV 09-0137 JB/RLP
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • April 15, 2010
    ...cancel the administrative-remedy process. See Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes Okla. v. United States, 966 F.2d 583, 588 (10th Cir.1992) (citing 25 C.F.R. § 2.4 (1981)). Instead, failure of the agency to give notice of the initial agency action simply extends the time in which the plaintiff can appe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT