(a) The Department will consider a criterion in § 83.11 to be met if the available evidence establishes a reasonable likelihood of the validity of the facts relating to that criterion.
(1) The Department will not require conclusive proof of the facts relating to a criterion in order to consider the criterion met.
(2) The Department will require existence of community and political influence or authority be demonstrated on a substantially continuous basis, but this demonstration does not require meeting these criteria at every point in time. Fluctuations in tribal activity during various years will not in themselves be a cause for denial of acknowledgment under these criteria.
(3) The petitioner may use the same evidence to establish more than one criterion.
(4) Evidence or methodology that the Department found sufficient to satisfy any particular criterion in a previous decision will be sufficient to satisfy the criterion for a present petitioner.
(b) When evaluating a petition, the Department will:
(1) Allow criteria to be met by any suitable evidence, rather than requiring the specific forms of evidence stated in the criteria;
(2) Take into account historical situations and time periods for which evidence is demonstrably limited or not available;
(3) Take into account the limitations inherent in demonstrating historical existence of community and political influence or authority;
(4) Require a demonstration that the criteria are met on a substantially continuous basis, meaning without substantial interruption; and
(5) Apply these criteria in context with the history, regional differences, culture, and social organization of the petitioner.
Notes of Decisions
Muwekma Tribe v. Babbitt, 133 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2001).
· cites it 7× “Reasoning that the Tribe had not yet submitted a complete petition, the BAR stated that its letter should “not be considered as the formal technical assistance review of a documented petition which is required by the acknowledgment regulations ( 25 C.F.R. § 83.10 (b)(2)).” See…”
Muwekma Tribe v. Babbitt, 133 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000).
· cites it 3× “Reasoning that the plaintiffs had not yet submitted a complete petition, BAR made clear that its letter should “not be considered as the formal technical assistance review of a documented petition which is required by the acknowledgment regulations ( 25 C.F.R. § 83.10 (b)(2)).”…”
Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. Kempthorne, 587 F. Supp. 2d 389 (D. Conn. 2008).
“3 The Proposed Finding (“PF”), or preliminary acknowledgment decision, on the STN, issued pursuant to 25 C.F.R. § 83.10 (h), analyzed and evaluated all of the evidence then in the record in the context of the acknowledgment regulations.”
Michigan Gambling Opposition (MichGO) v. Norton, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007).
“§ 2719 (b)(l)(B)(ii); see also 25 C.F.R. § 83.10 (explaining the process by which an American Indian group becomes an officially recognized Indian tribe).”
Greene v. Babbitt, 943 F. Supp. 1278 (W.D. Wash. 1996).
“The determination of the Assistant Secretary is final and becomes effective 60 days after a notice appears in the Federal Register unless the Secretary of the Interior requests a reconsideration by the Assistant Secretary — Indian Affairs pursuant to 25 C.”
Burt Lake Band of Ottawa & Chippewa v. Norton, 217 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2002).
“See 25 C.F.R. § 83.10 (d). Inclusion on DOI’s list entitles tribes to the “immunities and privileges available to other federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue *78 of their government-to-government relationship with the United States as well as the responsibilities,…”
United States v. 43.47 Acres of Land, 896 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D. Conn. 2012).
“See 25 C.F.R. §§ 83.10 (h), (i), (j), (k). Thus, the third element of collateral estoppel is satisfied.”
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. Babbitt, 117 F.3d 1489 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
“” Because the Delawares gave only notice of an intent to file a petition, moreover, use of Part 83 is not barred under 25 C.F.R. § 83.10 (p) (1996), which precludes repetitioning after a denial of recognition.”
Huron Potawatomi, Inc v. Stinger, 574 N.W.2d 706 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“On that date, the following notice appeared in the Federal Register: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(m), notice is hereby given that the Assistant Secretary acknowledges that the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.”
— 25 C.F.R. § 83.10(m) — 1 case
Huron Potawatomi, Inc v. Stinger, 574 N.W.2d 706 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“On that date, the following notice appeared in the Federal Register: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(m), notice is hereby given that the Assistant Secretary acknowledges that the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.