Fred Begay v. Onhir
18-15996
| 9th Cir. | May 29, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Fred Begay applied to the Office of Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) for relocation benefits claiming head-of-household status.
- ONHIR denied benefits; Begay administratively appealed and a hearing officer found his testimony and supporting witness testimony not credible.
- The hearing officer based the adverse credibility finding on inconsistent estimates of Begay’s earnings and number of houses worked on.
- Begay argued inconsistencies could be explained by passage of time, language barriers, cash payments, and variable pay, and claimed ONHIR effectively demanded documentary proof.
- The district court granted summary judgment affirming ONHIR’s denial; Begay appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard and placed the burden of proof for head-of-household status on Begay (25 C.F.R. §700.147(b)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency’s adverse credibility finding was supported | Begay: inconsistencies are explainable (time, language, cash pay, variable work) and do not go to the heart of claim | ONHIR: inconsistencies directly undermine claim about earnings and number of households worked | Court: Credibility finding upheld; inconsistencies were material to head-of-household status |
| Whether ONHIR required documentary proof (tax returns/wage statements) | Begay: ONHIR effectively required documents and failed to accommodate trust relationship | ONHIR: Did not require documents; credible testimony would suffice | Court: ONHIR did not require documents; it would accept credible testimony; burden remained on Begay |
| Whether limited testimony about miscellaneous income established self-support | Begay: payments for odd jobs, herding, breaking horses supported self-support | ONHIR: Such evidence was too limited and inconsistent to establish required earnings | Court: Testimony insufficient to meet burden; combined evidence did not prove head-of-household status |
| Whether agency decision should be set aside under APA | Begay: agency acted arbitrarily given explanations and trust relationship | ONHIR: decision supported by substantial evidence and reasoned credibility findings | Court: Affirmed summary judgment; agency action not arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopi Tribe v. Navajo Tribe, 46 F.3d 908 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for ONHIR determinations under APA)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency actions must be upheld on basis articulated by the agency)
- Chen v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 611 (9th Cir. 2004) (scope of materiality for credibility inconsistencies)