43 C.F.R. § 4.331
Who may appeal
Any interested party adversely affected by a final administrative action or decision of an official of the Bureau of Indian Affairs issued under regulations in title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations may appeal to the Board of Indian appeals, except—
(a) To the extent that decisions which are subject to appeal to a higher official within the Bureau of Indian Affairs must first be appealed to that official;
(b) Where the decision has been approved in writing by the Secretary or Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs prior to promulgation; or
(c) Where otherwise provided by law or regulation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 2000–2019 · leading case: Moody v. United States, 931 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Moody v. United States, 931 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “The Moodys did not file an appeal with the BIA for the cancellation of any of the leases. Instead, in 2016, the Moodys filed a complaint against the United States in the Claims Court seeking more than $1.”
Gasplus, L.L.C. v. United States Dep't of Interior, 593 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D.D.C. 2009). “43 C.F.R. §§ 4.331 , 4.337(a). In other words, the regulations provide “an agency process for the formulation of an order.”
Nkihtaqmikon v. Impson, 585 F.3d 495 (1st Cir. 2009). “6; 43 C.F.R. § 4.331 . *498 Rejecting other BIA objections (standing, ripeness), this court held that exhaustion of agency remedies was “mandatory” under governing precedent, subject only to the possibility that one of the established exceptions to the exhaustion requirement…”
Cnty. of Charles Mix v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 674 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2012). “4 (e); 43 C.F.R. § 4.331 ; South Dakota v. Acting Great Plains Reg’l Dir.”
Smith v. Babbitt, 96 F. Supp. 2d 907 (D. Minnesota 2000). “320 (stating, with regard to appeals in probate matters, that such appeals may be filed by “[a] party in interest”); 43 C.F.R. § 4.331 (providing that “[a]ny interested party affected by a final administrative action” may file an appeal in non-probate matters involving Indians,…”
Cermak v. United States Ex Rel. Dep't of Interior, 478 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2007). “” Raymond appealed this BIA ruling to the IBIA, as authorized by 43 C.F.R. § 4.331 , stating for the first time in a reply brief that the appeal was also filed on behalf of Stanley.”
Pres. of Los Olivos v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 635 F. Supp. 2d 1076 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “Although the IBIA did carefully and clearly explain its application of judicial standing, in neither its first or second orders did it construe or even mention its own regulations, 43 C.F.R. § 4.331 and 25 C.F.R. § 2.2 . 7 Even assuming that the IBIA construed its own…”
Gasplus v. United States Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C. 2009). “43 C.F.R. §§ 4.331 , 4.337(a). In other words, the regulations provide “an agency process for the formulation of an order.”
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.