(a) Except as otherwise provided by applicable statute or regulation, the provisions of 43 CFR 4.21 and this section govern the effect of a decision pending appeal and exhaustion of administrative remedies.
(b) A decision of an administrative law judge, Indian probate judge, or BIA official will not be effective during the time in which an interested party may file a notice of appeal, and the timely filing of a notice of appeal will suspend the effect of the decision appealed from pending the Board's decision on appeal, unless by order of the Board the decision, or any part of it, is made immediately effective.
(c) No further appeal will lie within the Department from a decision of the Board.
(d) The filing of a petition for reconsideration is not required to exhaust administrative remedies.
[90 FR 2412, Jan. 10, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Est. of Sauser v. United States, 171 F. Supp. 3d 947 (D.S.D. 2016).
· cites it 5× “Here, 43 C.F.R. § 4.314 requires Plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies.”
Sac & Fox Nation v. Norton, 585 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (W.D. Okla. 2006).
· cites it 3× “6 and 43 C.F.R. § 4.314 . Under 25 C.F.R. § 2.6 , no decision of an administrative law judge or other B.”
Fort Berthold Land & Livestock v. Anderson, 361 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (D.N.D. 2005).
· cites it 3× “At the same time, the rules governing appeals to the IBIA were amended to "ensure compatibility between those regulations and regulations of the Bureau of Indian Affairs." 54 Fed.Reg. 6483 (1989).”
Blackbear v. Norton, 93 F. App'x 192 (10th Cir. 2004).
“See 43 C.F.R. § 4.314 (a) (“No decision of ..”
Kakaygeesick v. Salazar, 656 F. Supp. 2d 964 (D. Minnesota 2009).
· cites it 2× “, at 6486; compare 43 C.F.R. § 4.314 (a)(1991) with id. (1988).”
Fort Berthold Land & Livestock Ass'n v. Anderson, 361 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (D.N.D. 2005).
· cites it 3× “At the same time, the rules governing appeals to the IBIA were amended to “ensure compatibility between those regulations and regulations of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.” 54 Fed.Reg. 6483 (1989).”
Stock West Corp. v. Lujan, 982 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1993).
“In particular, one amendment reiterated the need for an appeal to the IBIA before the decision of an BIA Area Director could be reviewed judicially.”
Smith v. Babbitt, 96 F. Supp. 2d 907 (D. Minnesota 2000).
“43 C.F.R. § 4.314 (a). Thus, if an ALJ’s decision is subject to appeal to the IBIA, administrative exhaustion is required and judicial review is barred in the absence of such an appeal.”
Donald Kakaygeesick v. Ken Salazar, etc., 389 F. App'x 580 (8th Cir. 2010).
“§ 704 (judicial review of final agency action); 43 C.F.R. § 4.314 (a) (no decision of ALJ will be considered final so as to constitute agency action subject to judicial review under § 704 unless it is has made effective by appeal to and decision by IBIA); Darby v.”
Oneida Tribe of Indians v. Vill. OF HOBART, 787 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Wis. 2011).
“Similarly, 43 C.F.R. § 4.314 (a) provides that decisions of a BIA official are not final unless the Interior Board of Indian Appeals makes the decision effective pending a decision on appeal.”
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.