Yazzie v. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, 3:20-cv-08097

Joey Tom Yazzie applied (2010) for Relocation Assistance Benefits under the Navajo and Hopi Land Settlement Act; eligibility requires being a resident of Hopi Partitioned Land (HPL) on Dec. 22, 1974 and remaining a resident when attaining "Head of Household" status per 25 C.F.R. §§ 700.69, 700.147.
Yazzie was born in 1964, lived on HPL through early elementary school, then moved to California after second grade; he returned to HPL regularly for summers/holidays and visited his grandmother until her 1994 death; he graduated high school in California in 1982.
ONHIR records and Navajo chapter resolutions show Yazzie’s father was certified as a legal HPL resident through 1981; ONHIR’s initial determination treated the minor Yazzie as a resident through 1981 but denied benefits because he allegedly left before becoming Head of Household.
At a hearing, an Independent Hearing Officer (IHO) reversed that view, finding Yazzie never had legal residence on HPL and remained dependent until end of 1983; the IHO did not address the father’s prior certification that he remained a resident through 1981.
The district court held the IHO’s conclusion that Yazzie was never a resident was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence (parties had agreed residency through 1981 and record supported residency at least through 1981); the court remanded the administrative decision for further proceedings and entered judgment for Yazzie.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Yazzie a legal resident of HPL on Dec. 22, 1974?	Yazzie: Record and parties’ statements show he was a resident (as a minor) through at least 1981.	ONHIR/IHO: Yazzie was a California resident from childhood; not a legal HPL resident.	Court: IHO’s finding unsupported by substantial evidence; record reflects residency at least through 1981.
Did Yazzie remain a resident until he became a Head of Household?	Yazzie: Issue is whether he attained Head of Household by 1982–83; factual record insufficient to deny.	ONHIR: Yazzie left HPL before attaining Head of Household status.	Court: IHO failed to properly address this; remanded for agency to resolve Head of Household/status questions.
Was the IHO’s decision supported by substantial evidence and adequately reasoned?	Yazzie: Decision arbitrary, internally inconsistent, and lacks substantial evidence.	ONHIR: Decision was supported by substantial evidence.	Court: Decision was arbitrary, capricious, not supported by substantial evidence; remand required for further explanation/investigation.

Hopi Tribe v. Navajo Tribe, 46 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 1995) (APA review applies to agency actions under the Settlement Act)
California Pac. Bank v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 885 F.3d 560 (9th Cir. 2018) (courts weigh supporting and detracting evidence in administrative record)
Bedoni v. Navajo–Hopi Indian Relocation Comm’n, 878 F.2d 1119 (9th Cir. 1989) (standard for setting aside agency decisions under APA)
Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1984) (agency entitled to draw reasonable inferences where evidence permits multiple interpretations)
Shirrod v. Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 809 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2015) (review limited to the agency’s reasoning and actions, not what it could have done)
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (insufficient agency reasoning generally requires remand for further explanation)
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (courts must not substitute their judgment for agency’s where the agency considered relevant factors)
Orteza v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 1995) (definition of "substantial evidence" in administrative-review context)