eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-09

Dan Jackson v. Onhir ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                               FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 28 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAN JACKSON,                                         No.   18-17247
Plaintiff-Appellant,                   D.C. No. 3:17-cv-08069-SPL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI
INDIAN RELOCATION, an
administrative agency of the United States,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 17, 2020
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, W. FLETCHER, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Dan Jackson appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor
of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (“ONHIR”) affirming the
denial of his application for relocation benefits.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
Brunozzi v. Cable Commc’ns, Inc.,
    851 F.3d 990
    , 995 (9th Cir. 2017). We review
ONHIR’s decision to determine if it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, not in accordance with law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.”
Bedoni v. Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Comm’n,
    878 F.2d 1119
    , 1122 (9th Cir.
1989); see also
    5 U.S.C. § 706
    (2)(A), (E). “Substantial evidence is more than a
mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.” Bayliss v. Barnhart,
    427 F.3d 1211
    ,
1214 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted); see also Tylitzki v. Shalala,
    999 F.2d 1411
    , 1413 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (“Substantial evidence is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”).
The parties are familiar with the evidentiary record in this case, and we do
not recite it here. Although there may be sufficient evidence in the record to
support an award of benefits, the decision of the ONHIR Hearing Officer denying
benefits is supported by substantial evidence. We therefore affirm the decision of
the district court upholding ONHIR’s decision denying benefits.
AFFIRMED.
2