34 U.S.C. § 10287

Funds available for appeals and expenses of representation of hearing examiners

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 34 CasesGoogle Scholar

On and after December 26, 2007, funds available to conduct appeals under section 1205(c) of the 1968 Act [34 U.S.C. 10285(c)], which includes all claims processing, shall be available also for the same under subpart 2 of such part L [34 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.] and under any statute authorizing payment of benefits described under subpart 1 [34 U.S.C. 10281 et seq.] thereof, and for appeals from final determinations of the Bureau (under such part or any such statute) to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which shall have exclusive jurisdiction thereof, and for expenses of representation of hearing examiners (who shall be presumed irrebuttably to enjoy quasi-judicial immunity in the discharge of their duties under such part or any such statute) in connection with litigation against them arising from such discharge: Provided further, That, on and after January 2, 2013, as to each such statute—(1) the provisions of section 1001(a)(4) of such title I (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(4)) 11 See References in Text note below. shall apply;(2) payment (consistent with section 10286 of this title) shall be made only upon a determination by the Bureau that the facts legally warrant the payment; and(3) any reference to section 1202 of such title I [34 U.S.C. 10282] shall be deemed to be a reference to paragraphs (2) and (3) of such section 1202:Provided further, That, on and after January 2, 2013, no appeal shall bring any final determination of the Bureau before any court for review unless notice of appeal is filed (within the time specified herein and in the manner prescribed for appeal to United States courts of appeals from United States district courts) not later than 90 days after the date on which the Bureau serves notice of the final determination: Provided further, That any regulations promulgated by the Bureau under such part (or any such statute) before, on, or after January 2, 2013, shall apply to any matter pending on, or filed or accruing after, the effective date specified in the regulations.(Pub. L. 110–161, div. B, title II, Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 1912; Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title X, § 1086(c), Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 1968.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The 1968 Act, referred to in text, is the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90–351, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 197. Section 1205(c) of the Act is classified to section 10285(c) of this title. Subparts 1 and 2 of such part L means subparts 1 and 2 of part L of title I of the Act which are classified generally to this part and part B (§ 10301 et seq.) of this subchapter. Sections 1001(a)(4) and 1202 of such title I mean sections 1001(a)(4) and 1202 of title I of the Act, which are classified to sections 10261(a)(4) and 10282, respectively, of this title. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of such section 1202 mean pars. (2) and (3) of section 10282 of this title, which were redesignated subsec. (a)(2) and (3), respectively, of that section by Pub. L. 115–36, § 5(1), June 2, 2017, 131 Stat. 852. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1968 Act note set out under section 10101 of this title and Tables.

Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 2008, and also as part of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, and not as part of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which comprises this chapter.

Section was formerly classified to section 3796c–2 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Amendments

2013—Pub. L. 112–239 substituted “final determinations” for “final decisions”, struck out “(including those, and any related matters, pending)” after “exclusive jurisdiction thereof”, and inserted three provisos at end.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2013 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–239 effective Jan. 2, 2013, and applicable to matters pending on Jan. 2, 2013, or filed or accruing after that date, with certain exceptions, see section 1086(d) of Pub. L. 112–239, set out as a note under section 10251 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2019–2026 · leading case: Massone v. United States Department of Justice

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Massone v. United States Department of Justice (2020) nysd · cites it 3× “54–55; see also 34 U.S.C. § 10287 . 2. Plaintiff’s Claim “The jurisdiction of federal courts is defined and limited by Article III of the Constitution .”

Sledge v. DOJ (2019) cafc · cites it 2× “We have jurisdiction under 34 U.S.C. § 10287 . DISCUSSION A On appeal, Claimants argue that the BJA Director mis- applied the agency’s regulation in finding that Jeansonne and Sledge did not qualify as “law enforcement officers” un- der 28 C.”

Li v. DOJ (2020) cafc “We have jurisdiction under 34 U.S.C. § 10287 . LI v. DOJ 5 DISCUSSION Ms.”

Watkins v. DOJ (2020) cafc “We have jurisdiction pursuant to 34 U.S.C. § 10287 . II. DISCUSSION This court’s authority to review a decision by the BJA to deny a claim for a PSOBA death benefit is limited.”

Goodrich v. DOJ (2021) cafc “We have jurisdiction under 34 U.S.C. § 10287 . DISCUSSION Our review of a denial of a claim for death benefits by the BJA “is limited to three inquiries: (1) whether there has been substantial compliance with statutory requirements and provisions of implementing regulations; (2)…”

Afolayan v. DOJ (2022) cafc “We have jurisdiction under 34 U.S.C. § 10287 . DISCUSSION We review the Bureau’s denial of a claim for death ben- efits for: “(1) whether there has been substantial compli- ance with statutory requirements and provisions of implementing regulations; (2) whether there has been…”

Lobo v. DOJ (2025) cafc “We have jurisdiction under 34 U.S.C. § 10287 . II We review the Bureau’s application of its own regula- tions to determine “(1) whether there has been substantial compliance with statutory requirements and provisions of implementing regulations; (2) whether there has been any…”

Afolayan v. DOJ (2026) cafc “We have jurisdiction under 34 U.S.C. § 10287 . Case: 24-1692 Document: 48 Page: 5 Filed: 04/17/2026 AFOLAYAN v.”

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.