Hedy Bahe, on behalf of deceased Jerry Bahe v. Office of Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation, an administrative agency of the United States

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HEDY BAHE, on behalf of deceased Jerry
Bahe,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OFFICE OF NAVAJO & HOPI INDIAN
RELOCATION, an administrative agency of
the United States,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-15271
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-08016-DLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and BATTAGLIA,*** District
Judge.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAY 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-15271
Hedy Bahe (“H. Bahe”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to the Office of Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation (“ONHIR”) affirming
the ONHIR’s denial of the application for relocation benefits submitted by her
husband, Jerry Bahe (“J. Bahe”). We review de novo the district court’s grant of
summary judgment. Brunozzi v. Cable Commc’ns, Inc., 851 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir.
2017). We review the ONHIR’s decision to determine if it was “arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, . . . otherwise not in accordance with law,” or
“unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The ONHIR provided “specific, cogent reason[s]” for, and substantial
evidence supported, its credibility determination. De Valle v. INS, 901 F.2d 787,
792 (9th Cir. 1990) (quotation omitted). H. Bahe struggled to remember events at
specific points in time, specifically the ages of her children during the pertinent time
period of 1973–74. Witness Marie Nelson was not aware that J. Bahe worked for
the railroad and did not visit the family. J. Bahe’s niece also could not testify as to
the time period in which events occurred. Further, H. Bahe’s testimony was in direct
conflict with the information provided by J. Bahe to an investigator for the ONHIR
in 1990. In light of the substantial deference afforded to such agency determinations,
we observe no reversible error.
The ONHIR concluded that H. Bahe failed to meet her burden of proving that,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-15271
“as of December 22, 1974,” she and her family were “legal residents” of Arrowhead,
which was later designated Hopi Partitioned Land (“HPL”). 25 C.F.R. §§ 700.97(a),
700.147(b). J. Bahe’s mother died in 1957. J. Bahe stated that the Bahes left the
HPL after his mother died. The Independent Hearing Officer’s interpretation that
the family moved shortly after the death instead of nearly 20 years after his mother’s
death is rational. See Orteza v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 748, 749 (9th Cir. 1995).
Finally, the ONHIR drew reasonable inferences from the Joint Use Area
Roster, which, along with other evidence, substantiated the residency determination.
For these reasons, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the
ONHIR.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --