Because the Governor has general supervision and control of all executive departments, agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, personnel decisions are subject to his direction as long as his actions are in accordance with applicable territorial and federal laws and rules.Rev. Const. Am. Samoa Art. II, § 7; A.S.C.A. § 7.0110; A.S.A.C. §§ 4.0102, 4.0111(b).Sala v. American Samoa Gov’t, 21 A.S.R.2d 14.

When the government makes rules to govern the conduct of its affairs, it must abide by those rules and act within its authority.Sala v. American Samoa Gov’t, 21 A.S.R.2d 14.

Constitutional statutory authority is always paramount to administrative rule authority. Vaella’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 134 (Trial Div. 1997).

The authority, powers, and duties of the Administrative Law Judge are administrative in nature and limited to legitimate Executive branch functions.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

§ 2Administrative Agencies, Officers and Agents

SEE AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT § 4(3) – AGENCIES

An agency’s head may only reassign an employee involuntarily with the concurrence of the Director of Human Resources and with a finding that the reassignment be in the best interests of the government; failure to follow the regulatory standard is arbitrary and an error of law.A.S.C.A. § 4.1044(6); A.S.A.C. § 4.0804(b).Leiato v. Personnel Advisory Board, 21 A.S.R.2d 25.

If done within the scope and by the apparent authority of a de jure public officer, a de facto public officer’s acts are binding on third parties; it is as if the de facto public officer were legally selected, qualified and in possession of the office.Toilolo v. Poti, 24 A.S.R.2d 1.

Under A.S.C.A. §§ 12.0205 and 12.0206 the Legislature created the office of procurement and the position of chief procurement officer, and specified certain credentials for such officer, who is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.B.H.P. Petroleum South Pac., Inc.v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 10 (App. Div. 1998).

The Administrative Law Judge Act of 1998 transferred the final administrative agency hearing authority of the Personnel Advisory Board to the Administrative Law Judge.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

§ 3Separation of Administrative and other Powers

SEE AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT § 2 – SEPARATION OF POWERS

Administrative board, given statutory authority to advise agency and to perform such duties as governor assigns, had no authority to issue binding personnel decisions absent explicit grant, especially when Code sets forth hiring and termination procedures that do not involve board.Banks v. American Samoa Gov’t, 4 A.S.R.2d 113.

As adequate safeguards exist to inform the Director of Administrative Services of the natural “termination” of insurance policies by expiration of the policy period, the legislature did not intend the statute requiring an insurer to notify the Director at least ten days prior to “cancellation” of a policy to apply to “terminations.”A.S.C.A. § 22.2013.Pu`u v. Lepule, 8 A.S.R.2d 68.

Under statute providing that blank forms for petitions required of candidates for elective office should be distributed by election officer, and also providing that eligibility of candidates should be determined after they had filed the required petitions, election officer had no authority to withhold blank forms from a prospective candidate whom he did not did not believe to be eligible for election.A.S.C.A. §§ 6.0301(b),(d).Siofele v. Shimasaki, 8 A.S.R.2d 81.

Under territorial immigration statute, the immigration board determines only whether an alien is deportable; the decision actually to deport a deportable alien is within the discretion of the attorney general.A.S.C.A. § 41.0616. Leti v. Immigration Board, 8 A.S.R.2d 107.

Order of deportation must be made by the Attorney General.A.S.C.A. § 41.0616.Rakhshan v. Immigration Board, 15 A.S.R.2d 29.

The Attorney General’s Office may not simultaneously act as both counsel and legal advisor to a government agency.A.S.C.A. § 4.1034.Leiato v. Personnel Advisory Board, 21 A.S.R.2d 25.

The American Samoa Procurement Act of 1983, A.S.C.A. §§ 12.0201-.0219, carefully proscribes a system of government purchasing so as to ensure predictability and fairness, and the integrity of this system is disturbed when the Governor acts as chief procurement officer.B.H.P. Petroleum South Pac., Inc.v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 10 (App. Div. 1998).

Where the Governor commingles the powers of separate offices, he exceeds the scope of his constitutional and legislatively granted powers, to the prejudice of substantial rights of an affected party, and a decision by the Governor acting as chief procurement officer to award a contract must be reversed.B.H.P. Petroleum South Pac., Inc.v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 10 (App. Div. 1998).

§ 4Powers and Proceedings of Administrative Agencies, Officers and Agents

§ 4(1)—General Provisions

Agency jurisdiction is generally the power granted to a particular department, board or commission of government to effectively administer the laws enacted by the Legislature under that agency’s authority.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

The Administrative Procedures Act of 1969 (A.S.C.A. § 4.1001 et seq) establishes the general procedures which all A.S.G. departments, boards, and commissions must follow when empowered to act as agencies with rule-making or contested case decision making authority.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

According to A.S.C.A. § 4.1032(5), administrative hearings are conducted by a “hearings officer”, otherwise known as an “administrative law judge”.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

The Administrative Procedures Act affords an aggrieved party the right, upon exhausting the administrative decision making process, to limited judicial review of an agency’s final decision by the Appellate Division of the High Court. Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

Although the Legislature has the limited, constitutional authority to replace certain judicial proceedings with administrative contested case proceedings, it may not invest an administrative hearings officer with more than quasi-judicial authority.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

An A.L.J. cannot conduct an original contested case proceeding under the A.P.A. by conducting a “trial de novo” under judicial branch rules and procedures.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

A “trial de novo” can only be conducted by the A.L.J. where there was a prior administrative decision or hearing and the A.L.J. has been specifically authorized by constitutionally enacted legislation to conduct and decide a final administrative hearing on a contested case.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

If compatible with the rules and statutes creating or implementing the agency, the A.L.J. may, as allowed under § 4.0602(a) of the Act, hear and decide contested cases in original proceedings.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

If the Legislature has directed by statute the final agency decision-making power to be exercised only by a superior agency officer, such as its director, or by its governing board, commission or chief officer thereof, the A.L.J. is allowed only to hear and recommend a decision in a contested case with the agency director, board, etc. so that the agency head can make a final, informed, agency decision as mandated by law.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

The A.L.J. Act confers authority to the O.A.L.J. to conduct de novo hearings in those limited situations where the A.L.J. has been clearly designated by the Legislature as the final administrative agency decision maker.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

In contested matters brought before an agency having subject matter administrative jurisdiction over the dispute, where the Administrative Law Judge has not been designated by the Legislature as the final administrative agency decision maker, the A.L.J. functions as an agency hearings officer and conducts hearings under the A.P.A. or such special statutes or rules which apply to that particular agency.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

§ 4(2)—Due Process

SEE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 7(1) – DUE PROCESS

Argument that license was “revoked” without procedural due process was unfounded where evidence shows license was never granted.Am. Sam. Const. art. I § 2.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 7 A.S.R.2d 26.

In order to have a cognizable claim for deprivation of procedural due process, one must first possess a “liberty” or “property” interest in the government action complained of.Am. Sam. Const. art. I § 2.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 7 A.S.R.2d 26.

Procedural due process requirements are not fixed, but vary with circumstances and particular demands of the case; however, some sort of notice and hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property interest.Am. Sam. Const. art. I § 2.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 7 A.S.R.2d 26.

Notice and hearing afforded to satisfy procedural due process need not be full judicial hearing.Am. Sam. Const. art. I § 2.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 7 A.S.R.2d 26.

To satisfy requirement of procedural due process, opportunity to be heard must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, but need not always be granted prior to the initial deprivation of property.Am. Sam. Const. art. I § 2.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 7 A.S.R.2d 26.

Ordinarily, due process is satisfied by proceedings less than a full evidentiary hearing prior to adverse administrative action, and the sufficiency of such proceedings is to be determined in light of 1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action, 2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest through the procedures used and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards, and 3) the government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would impose.Am. Sam. Const. art. I § 2.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 7 A.S.R.2d 26.

Procedural due process is satisfied by piecemeal proceedings wherein parties were advised of the required showing, the proofs were considered promptly by the regulating agency, parties were advised of the agency’s findings of insufficiency, parties submitted further proofs, agency considered proofs and again advised parties that such proof was insufficient, agency did not issue a denial and remained open to further submission of proofs.Am. Sam. Const. art. I § 2.Ferstle v. V. American Samoa Gov’t, 7 A.S.R.2d 26.

Due process requirements of notice and opportunity to be heard are not triggered until adverse administrative action constituting a “final” deprivation of property has taken place.Am. Sam. Const. art. I § 2.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 7 A.S.R.2d 26.

Recurring and intentionally dilatory tactics by agency may constitute “final” action sufficient to trigger due process requirements of notice and hearing.Am. Sam. Const. art. I § 2.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 7 A.S.R.2d 26.

The expected benefit of a license which issues subject to articulated standards of qualification is a property interest giving rise to due process protection, although not to the full range of pre-deprivation procedural protections applicable to entitlements that are less contingent than the expectation of a license.Am. Sam. Const. art. I § 2.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 7 A.S.R.2d 26.

Because in most cases licensing will be a straightforward process, quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing in all licensing proceedings would needlessly increase government expenditures and such hearings are required only where the proposed action on a license application will be final.Am. Sam. Const. art. I § 2., A.S.C.A. § 31.1508.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 7 A.S.R.2d 26.

Both the territorial Administrative Procedure Act and the Department of Public Safety’s Standard Operating Procedure, a statement of internal management not defined as an administrative rule under the APA, afford a person under investigation the basic due-process rights of notice of the hearing, including a concise statement of allegations, and a right to a hearing at which there is an opportunity to respond and present evidence and argument on all issues involved, and conduct cross-examination.A.S.C.A §§ 4.1025, 4.1026; SOP §§ 4.1.3, 4.1.4.Sala v. American Samoa Gov’t, 21 A.S.R.2d 50.

As long as the claimant has notice and an opportunity to be heard, the claimant has been afforded adequate procedural due process.Faumuina v. American Samoa Gov’t Emp. Ret. Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (Trial Div. 1997).

Where employee was not given advance notice of the charges against him such that he could gather evidence and solicit witness testimony to present defense, such procedure did not substantially comport with the requirements of procedural due process.Faumuina v. American Samoa Gov’t Emp. Ret. Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (Trial Div. 1997).

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, hearings are to be conducted under minimal due process requirements and relaxed rules of procedure and evidence, which are set forth in A.S.C.A. §§ 4.2025-4.1037.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

§ 4(3)—Rules and Regulations

Administrative code provision purporting to free territorial utility from liability for any damages attributable to the presence of the utility’s property on consumer’s premises, was inconsistent with statute providing that utility could be sued, especially in light of public policy that provisions purporting to absolve the drafting party from liability for its own negligence should be strictly construed.A.S.A.C. § 12.0207(b).Fa’avae v. American Samoa Power Authority, 5 A.S.R.2d 53.

Administrative rule allowing rejection of bids on account of ambiguities in the solicitation, if construed to allow rejection of a bid which was clearly the low one on account of an ambiguity in the solicitation that had been cured by the bids themselves, would violate competitive bidding statute prohibiting changes prejudicial to fair competition.A.S.A.C. § 10.0232; A.S.C.A. § 12.0211.Pago Petroleum Products, Inc., v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75.

ASG regulations which set out those situations in which non-competitive procedures are applicable do not supersede the mandatory statutory requirement relating to the utilization of an applicant supply-file system for the hiring and promotion of government employees.A.S.C.A. §§ 7.0204(b), 7.0205(b), 7.0206; A.S.A.C. § 4.0303(b).Leiato v. Personnel Advisory Board, 21 A.S.R.2d 25.

Existing coastal management rules and regulations were not nullified by the Development Planning Office’s failure to formally promulgate new, statutorily required rules for administering the American Samoa Coastal Management Program.A.S.C.A. § 24.0506(a)-(b); A.S.A.C. §§ 26.0201 et seq.Le Vaomatua v. American Samoa Gov’t, 23 A.S.R.2d 11.

An administrative rule adopted pursuant to the rulemaking process in the Administrative Procedure Act has the force and effect of law.A.S.C.A. §§ 1.0201(3), 4.1001-4.1010.Bryant v. Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc., 23 A.S.R.2d 55.

The Department of Public Safety’s rules governing early release programs are “rules” within the meaning of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), and, therefore, must comport with the rulemaking procedures of the APA.A.S.G. v. Ki, 31 A.S.R.2d 118.

Rulemaking under the APA requires several steps, including giving meaningful advance notice of the terms or substance of the proposed action; providing interested persons reasonable opportunity to submit “data, views, and arguments, orally or in writing;” filing the rule with the Secretary of American Samoa, with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and with the Secretary of the Senate; and making the rule available for public inspection.A.S.C.A. §§ 4.1004, 4.1005, 4.1008, 4.1010, 4.1020(a).A.S.G. v. Ki, 31 A.S.R.2d 118.

Rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act requires several procedural steps, including: 1) the rule-making agency must give at least 20 days notice of adoption, amendment, or repeal of any non-emergency rule, A.S.C.A. §§ 4.1004 and 4.1010, which must include statutorily required information, and be mailed to interested persons or publicized in all ASG operated broadcasting media, A.S.C.A. § 4.1004; 2)the agency must give all interested persons reasonable opportunity to submit “data, views, and arguments, orally or in writing,” either at a public or other suitable means, and consider those submissions before the rule is adopted, amended, or repealed, A.S.C.A. § 4.1005;3) the agency must file the rule with the Secretary of American Samoa, and with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate of the Legislature, A.S.C.A. § 4.1008 (the rule become effective 20 days after the filing is complete, or later if required by statute or rule, A.S.C.A. § 4.1009(c)(1)); and 4) the agency must make the rule available for public inspection.A.S.C.A. § 4.1020(a).Congressional Church of Jesus in Samoa v. A.S.G., 31 A.S.R.2d 122.

Except as to any person who has actual knowledge of a rule, no agency rule is valid or effective until the public inspection requirement, A.S.C.A. § 4.1020(a), has been met.Congressional Church of Jesus in Samoa v. A.S.G., 31 A.S.R.2d 122.

The court will accept an agency’s letter and printed rule as demonstrating substantial compliance with all applicable procedures, including a public hearing and public inspection, except the requisite filing.Congressional Church of Jesus in Samoa v. A.S.G., 31 A.S.R.2d 122.

Despite procedural deficiencies, administrative rules are valid and enforceable against persons who have actual knowledge of the rules.A.S.C.A. § 1009(b).Congressional Church of Jesus in Samoa v. A.S.G., 31 A.S.R.2d 122.

When a plaintiff files a tort claim with the Attorney General at any time within the two-year period provided by § 43.1204, the running of the two-year period is stayed and the statute is tolled for such time as the Attorney General takes to act upon the claim or until such time as the claim is denied by default.Bradcock v. American Samoa Gov’t, 1 A.S.R.3d 42 (App. Div. 1997).

Administrative rules must not only be consistent with the statute under which they are promulgated, but also within the scope of the legislative delegation.Lauvao v. American Samoa Gov’t, 1 A.S.R.3d 224 (Land & Titles Div. 1997).

The administrative rules contained in Title 10, Chapter 2 of the American Samoa Administrative Code were promulgated by the Chief Procurement Officer pursuant to statutory authority so as to advance a particular government purpose: to maximize integrity in the procurement of construction, goods, and services.See A.S.C.A. § 12.0214; A.S.C.A. § 10.0202.A.S.C.A. § 10.0292(h)(2)(B) does not regulate government employee ethics outside the context of procurement.Lauvao v. American Samoa Gov’t, 1 A.S.R.3d 224 (Land & Titles Div. 1997).

A quasi-judicial proceeding where a panel appointed by the governor reviews the decision of an administrative agency is governed by criteria of fair play under the Administrative Procedures Act, A.S.C.A. §4.1044, and is not governed by the standards of law, procedural rules, and evidentiary rules reserved for appellate review of judicial decisions.B.H.P. Petroleum South Pac., Inc.v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 1 (App. Div. 1998).

An administrative rule adopted under the Administrative Procedures Act, A.S.C.A. §§ 4.1001-.1044 has the full force and effect of law.B.H.P. Petroleum South Pac., Inc.v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 10 (App. Div. 1998).

A.S.C.A. § 4.0607, which requires a “trial de novo” in all proceedings before the A.L.J. is limited in application to sections 1-5 of the Administrative Law Judge Act.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

§ 4(4)—Agency Interpretation of Rules & Regulations

Considerable deference is given to administrative decisions involving an agency’s construction of its governing statute and regulations only where the interpretation is consistent with the statutory mandate and does not frustrate legislative policy; administrative rules cannot supersede existing statutory authority where they directly conflict.Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App. Div. 2000).

Administrative decisions involving the construction of an agency’s governing statute and regulations are given considerable deference where it appears that agency’s decision is based on a permissible construction of the statute.Tuilefano v. Attorney General, 4 A.S.R.3d 67 (Trial Div. 2000).

§ 4(5)—Hearings and Adjudications

Notice and hearing afforded to satisfy procedural due process need not be full judicial hearing.Am. Sam. Const. art. I § 2.Ferstle v. American Samoa Gov’t, 7 A.S.R.2d 26.

Appellant’s claim that the trial court failed to apply certain evidentiary presumptions was without merit, as in administrative proceedings the agency rather than the court is to weigh the evidence and find facts; evidentiary presumptions used to facilitate fact-finding should be applied at the agency level and not at the level of judicial review.Continental Insurance Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 8 A.S.R.2d 152.

In an administrative proceeding a fact need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt or even by clear and compelling evidence in order to be proved conclusively; the applicable standard is, rather, whether the fact appears from the evidence to be more probably true than not.Solomona v. Governor of American Samoa, 18 A.S.R.2d 14.

Regarding proposed land transfers, for which the Land Commission must provide the government with recommendations, the Land Commission should hold public hearings and must give reasonable notice of its deliberations to interested persons, regardless of the forum selected to “study” proposed transactions.Vaimaona v. Tuitasi, 22 A.S.R.2d 1.

Plaintiffs carry a legal duty to file administrative claims within a reasonable time or they will be barred by the doctrine of laches.Bradcock v. American Samoa Gov’t, 28 A.S.R.2d 66.

The statute of limitations may begin to run before the filing of an administrative claim if the prospective plaintiff unreasonably delays the administrative filing.Bradcock v. American Samoa Gov’t, 28 A.S.R.2d 182.

A government tort administrative claim filed with the ASG Attorney General pursuant to A.S.C.A. § 43.1205 is deemed effectively denied if three months elapse after the filing of the claim with no reply by the Attorney General.Bradcock v. American Samoa Gov’t, 1 A.S.R.3d42 (App. Div. 1997).

Under A.S.C.A. § 4.1041(b) a stay of an administrative decision may be issued on appropriate terms without an evidentiary hearing.B.H.P. Petroleum South Pac., Inc.v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 1 (App. Div. 1998).

Judicial review of a procurement decision lies in the first instance before the Office of the Administrative Law Judge.Purcell v. Seugogo, 6 A.S.R.3d 276 (Trial Div. 2002).

Where complaint went beyond alleging of noncompliance with administrative regulations to state intentional racial discrimination, it did not belong at the administrative level.Purcell v. Seugogo, 6 A.S.R.3d 276 (Trial Div. 2002).

In aid of its jurisdiction, the Land and Titles Division of the High Court may invoke the procedural flexibility permitted by A.S.C.A. § 3.0242(b) where it finds it most consistent with natural justice and convenience to continue the case and remand it to the Land Commission.Anoa`i v. Lai, 6 A.S.R.3d 297 (Land & Titles Div. 2002).

§ 5Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions

SEE CIVIL PROCEDURE § 11(11) – ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY DECISIONS

§ 5(1) —Finality and Exhaustio

Approach to question whether administrative decision is final and therefore appealable is essentially pragmatic concern for just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.French v. Fa’alevao, 1 A.S.R.2d 44 (App. Div. 1980).

Where statute provided for appeal to board of registration from a denial of voter registration by election officer, and for judicial review of an adverse decision of the board of registration, court would not issue writ of mandamus to election officer ordering him to register prospective voter who had not yet appealed to board of registration.A.S.C.A. §§ 6.0224, 6.0230.Siofele v. Shimasaki, 8 A.S.R.2d 81.

One who challenges the right of another person to be registered or to vote as a qualified elector must exhaust administrative remedies before submitting the matter to court.A.S.C.A. §§ 6.0230 et seq.Election Office v. Tuika, 9 A.S.R.2d 1.

Court would not exercise its power to render a declaratory judgment where the party seeking the judgment had not exhausted his administrative remedies.Election Office v. Tuika, 9 A.S.R.2d 1.

Under statute requiring plaintiff to file an administrative claim before bringing action against the government, administrative claim by mother that she and her family had suffered damages adequately notified the government of the claims of her minor children, so that suit by minors should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.A.S.C.A. § 43.1205(a).Utu v. National Pacific Insurance Co., 9 A.S.R.2d 88.

Requirement that a claimant against a government agency must exhaust administrative remedies before bringing suit comprises both waiveable and non-waiveable elements.Pago Petroleum Products, Inc., v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75.

Laws prescribing detailed procedures for presenting claims to an agency, designed to give the agency a fair chance to review and respond to the claim before being hauled into court, may be waived by the agency.Pago Petroleum Products, Inc., v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75.

Neither administrative agency nor court may dispense with requirements designed to ensure that case admits of judicial resolution: that there be a genuine dispute between the claimant and the agency on at least one specific and identifiable question of law and fact.Pago Petroleum Products, Inc., v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75.

Jurisdictional requirement that an agency decision be final before claimant challenges it in court may not be waived.Pago Petroleum Products, Inc., v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75.

Insofar as territorial statute prescribing final decision by administrative agency as prerequisite to judicial review simply gave the agency the right to insist on exhaustion of its internal review procedures, it was waiveable by the agency, but insofar as it incorporated the rule that courts should decide real controversies it could not be waived.A.S.C.A. § 4.1040(a).Pago Petroleum Products, Inc., v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75.

Administrative agency decision to issue a new invitation for bids for fuel supply contract was a final decision rejecting bidder’s contention that it had a right to the contract as a result of being the low bidder in the original bidding procedure.A.S.C.A. § 4.1040(a).Pago Petroleum Products, Inc., v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75.

Whether an administrative agency decision was lawful and whether it was final are separate questions; a decision may be substantively illegal and yet be the real and settled position of the agency.A.S.C.A. § 4.1040(a).Pago Petroleum Products, Inc., v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75.

Administrative agency decision is final, for the limited purpose of giving rise to a justiciable controversy, even if there were procedural defects in the process by which it was made, provided that it is meant to reflect the settled position of the agency and leaves the parties genuinely adverse.A.S.C.A. § 4.1040(a).Pago Petroleum Products, Inc., v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75.

Decision by board of directors of administrative agency to reject bidder’s claim of entitlement to fuel supply contract was final and gave rise to a justiciable controversy, notwithstanding the absence of a quorum at the board meeting, where (1) agency’s chief executive officer implemented the decision by canceling the original award and issuing an invitation for new bids, and (2) in subsequent litigation, agency did not assert its continuing discretion to review the decision but instead sought a judicial order that the new bidding process go forward.A.S.C.A. § 4.1040(a).Pago Petroleum Products, Inc., v. American Samoa Power Authority, 10 A.S.R.2d 75.

Where a statute or rule of common requires an administrative claim to be presented and prohibits suit until the claim has been rejected or a period for official action has expired, the cause of action does not accrue and the limitation period does not begin to run until the claim is rejected or the stated period expires.Mataipule v. Tifaimoana Partnership, Ltd. (Mem), 14 A.S.R.2d 100.

Filing of the administrative claim required as a prerequisite to suit under the Government Tort Liability Act may toll the Act’s statute of limitations.Mataipule v. Tifaimoana Partnership, Ltd. (Mem), 14 A.S.R.2d 100.

Cause of action accrues under the Government Tort Liability Act when the administrative remedies under the Act are exhausted, because plaintiff cannot seek judicial relief until then. Mataipule v. Tifaimoana Partnerships, Ltd., 16 A.S.R.2d 48.

An administrative claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a suit against ASG under the Government Tort Liability Act.A.S.C.A. §§ 43.1201 et seq.Rakhshan v. American Samoa Gov’t, 20 A.S.R.2d 1.

Although a failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not absolutely preclude judicial action, such action is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, including the exception for violations of statutory or constitutional rights.Sala v. American Samoa Gov’t, 21 A.S.R.2d 50.

To file suit regarding disciplinary matters, a public employee need not await a final agency decision only if a preliminary agency decision clearly and unambiguously violates a statutory or constitutional right of the employee or if the prescribed administrative process is clearly inadequate to prevent irreparable injury.Sala v. American Samoa Gov’t, 21 A.S.R.2d 50.

The requirement of filing an administrative claim before filing suit under the Government Tort Liability Act is jurisdictional.A.S.C.A. § 43.1205.Bryant v. Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc., 22 A.S.R.2d 23.

Although based on the Federal Tort Liability Act, the territorial Government Tort Liability Act does not contain the former’s exception for third-party complaints from the requirement that an administrative-claim is a prerequisite to filing suit.28 U.S.C. § 2675; A.S.C.A. § 43.1205.Bryant v. Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc., 22 A.S.R.2d 23.

Though modeled on the Federal Tort Claims Act, as amended in 1966, the territorial Government Tort Liability Act does not contain the F.T.C.A.’s exception from the administrative-claim prerequisite for a cause of action asserted by third-party complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim.28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); A.S.C.A. § 43.1205(a).Bryant v. Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc., 22 A.S.R.2d 88.

Being an extraordinary remedy, a preliminary injunction is granted only when clearly warranted and may be denied when administrative remedies have not been exhausted.A.S.C.A. § 4.1040.Le Vaomatua v. American Samoa Gov’t, 23 A.S.R.2d 11.

Although the Attorney General’s decision on an administrative claim is final and conclusively binding on all ASG officers, except when procured by fraud, his action cannot result in a waiver or estoppel preventing ASG from raising a jurisdictional issue at any stage of future litigation.A.S.C.A. § 43.1206.Bryant v. Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc., 23 A.S.R.2d 55.

The sum-certain requirement for administrative claims filed against ASG is both statutorily and administratively an integral part of the jurisdictional administrative-claim process.A.S.C.A. § 43.1203(c); A.S.A.C. § 43.0103(a).Bryant v. Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc., 23 A.S.R.2d 55.

When the issue of the alienation of a parcel of communal land was improperly referred to the Secretary of Samoan Affairs instead of being the subject of a Land Commission hearing, the action was dismissed as being prematurely before the court.Tuioti v. Fonoti, 24 A.S.R.2d 100.

A.S.A.C. § 26.0320(h) requires that “[w]ithin 10 days after receipt of the decision the applicant or any other interested party may file a written motion for reconsideration.”McGuire v. Zoning Board, 26 A.S.R.2d 59.

When a statute prescribes administrative remedies, which must be exhausted before judicial review is allowed, these procedures are jurisdictional. McGuire v. Zoning Board, 26 A.S.R.2d 59.

Judicial review is available to a person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within an agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case.McGuire v. Zoning Board, 26 A.S.R.2d 59.

Whether compelled by statute or exercised as a matter of judicial discretion, the long settled rule of judicial administration is that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy had been exhausted. McGuire v. Zoning Board, 26 A.S.R.2d 59.

When a statute prescribes administrative remedies, which must be exhausted before judicial review is allowed, these procedures are jurisdictional.McGuire v. Zoning Board, 26 A.S.R.2d 59.

The Zoning Board, and not this court, has the jurisdiction to decide the issues, at the administrative level, where court has already determined that it lacked jurisdiction to decide these issues based on party’s failure to exhaust administrative remedy.McGuire v. Zoning Board, 26 A.S.R.2d 59.

Filing a complaint before administrative remedies have been exhausted fails to invoke the court’s jurisdiction, but such a filing is sufficient to toll the statute, on the theory that filing an administrative claim constituted the beginning of an action.Randall v. American Samoa Gov’t, 28 A.S.R.2d 70.

Courts will not grant declaratory judgments until administrative remedies have been exhausted unless such administrative remedies are inadequate.Moetoto v. Tauileva, 28 A.S.R.2d 144.

It is appropriate to stay proceedings pending completion of the dispute resolution process before the Secretary of Samoan Affairs.Meredith v. Koko, 28 A.S.R.2d149.

Where prior resort to a mandatory administrative procedure is a prerequisite to filing a claim in court, the running of the limitations period will be tolled during the administrative proceeding.Bradcock v. American Samoa Gov’t, 1 A.S.R.3d 42 (App. Div. 1997).

In most declaratory relief actions, exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to judicial review.Tauia v. American Samoa Gov’t, 1 A.S.R.3d 64 (Trial Div. 1997).

Dismissal of government employment action without prejudice was proper where dispute had not undergone three-part administrative procedure.Tauia v. American Samoa Gov’t, 1 A.S.R.3d 64 (Trial Div. 1997).

Under three-part administrative procedure, government employee submits written grievance to supervisor, Director of Manpower Resources conducts an informal hearing and issues a “final decision,” after which employee may appeal to Personnel Advisory Board.Tauia v. American Samoa Gov’t, 1 A.S.R.3d 64 (Trial Div. 1997).

In order to obtain judicial review of an administrative decision, a potential plaintiff must exhaust all administrative remedies within the agency.McGuire v. Zoning Board, 3 A.S.R.3d 15 (App. Div. 1999).

The administrative remedies available to an individual aggrieved by a decision of the Zoning Board consist of an initial hearing and a procedure for reconsideration of the Board’s decision.McGuire v. Zoning Board, 3 A.S.R.3d 15 (App. Div. 1999).

The requirement that a litigant exhaust his or her administrative remedies before bringing suit is an intensely practical one which may be judicially excused when the purposes of the requirement would not be served by requiring adherence.McGuire v. Zoning Board, 3 A.S.R.3d 15 (App. Div. 1999).

Where administrative remedies had been exhausted by entity’s representative, not formally appearing on behalf of entity but appearing for himself, entity was nonetheless entitled to judicial review, as purposes behind exhaustion requirement were met—case was not premature, hearing and reconsideration had taken place, and Board had ample opportunity to review and reverse its decision. McGuire v. Zoning Board, 3 A.S.R.3d 15 (App. Div. 1999).

The court does not have jurisdiction to review a final order of the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) in the absence of a final decision by the Governor on the administrative appeal of the CPO’s decision.Island’s Choice, Inc. v. American Samoa Gov’t, 3 A.S.R.3d 49 (App. Div. 1999).

Where a party has exhausted all administrative remedies within an agency and is aggrieved by a final (or effectively dispositive) decision in a contested case, the party is entitled to judicial review as prescribed under A.S.C.A. § 4.1040 et seq.Island’s Choice, Inc. v. American Samoa Gov’t, 3 A.S.R.3d 49 (App. Div. 1999).

A party aggrieved by a preliminary, procedural or intermediate agency action or ruling need not exhaust all administrative remedies prior to filing for judicial review if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy.Island’s Choice, Inc. v. American Samoa Gov’t, 3 A.S.R.3d 49 (App. Div. 1999).

Under the broad legal themes of separation of powers, sovereign immunity, exhaustion of administrative remedies and judicial restraint, immediate review of an administrative decision will be denied where no grounds are demonstrated that remaining administrative remedies are inadequate.Island’s Choice, Inc. v. American Samoa Gov’t, 3 A.S.R.3d 49 (App. Div. 1999).

The administrative remedies available to an individual under A.S.C.A. § 4.1040, where the disputed procurement award could be adequately remedied by the Governor’s reversal and remand of that award at the conclusion of the administrative review proceedings, the court lacks judicial review jurisdiction, and also lacks the authority to exercise its ancillary powers to issue a stay.Island’s Choice, Inc. v. American Samoa Gov’t, 3 A.S.R.3d 49 (App. Div. 1999).

Where plaintiff properly files administrative claim with Attorney General’s office but said office fails to dispose of the claim within the prescribed 90 day time period, the claim is deemed denied and plaintiff has satisfied the prerequisite to exhaust administrative remedies.Afele-Fa`amuli v. Am. Samoa Cmty. Coll., 4 A.S.R.3d 219 (Trial Div. 2000).

Where party had moved for reconsideration or new trial before Administrative Law Judge and had also petitioned for judicial review, motion for new trial needed to be decided before judicial review could take place.Forsgren v. American Samoa Gov’t, 5 A.S.R.3d 13 (App. Div. 2001).

With the possible exception of conducting the final administrative hearing in the administrative rule procurement bid dispute process under A.S.C.A. § 4.0604(e), the Administrative Law Judge Act provides no constitutionally permissible authority for the Administrative Law Judge to conduct a “trial de novo” as an “appeal” from the final administrative decision of another agency of government.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

Final agency decisions are subject to limited judicial review in most instances before the Appellate Division of the High Court under sections A.S.C.A. §§ 4.1040-4.1044 of the Administrative Procedures Act or as may be particularly provided in the enabling statutes of a particular agency.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

§ 5(2)—Procedure

Appeals of Zoning Board decisions proceed in like manner to appeals under the Administrative Procedures Act, in that the administrative record must be submitted within 30 days and the court is confined to that record, though it may receive evidence to supplement the record.Ala`ilima v. Zoning Board, 25 A.S.R.2d 146.

Appeals to the High Court from the Zoning Board “may be taken in like manner to appeals under the Administrative Procedure Act.McGuire v. Zoning Board, 26 A.S.R.2d 59.

Within 30 days from the service of the petition for appellate review, an agency is to send the court the record of the proceedings in the matter under review.A.S.C.A. § 4.1042; A.C.R. 17(a).McGuire v. Zoning Board, 26 A.S.R.2d 59.

Appellate review is confined to the record.On a party’s request, “the court shall receive briefs and hear oral argument”; and the court has the discretion to receive evidence to supplement the record.A.S.C.A. § 4.1043(a).McGuire v. Zoning Board, 26 A.S.R.2d 59.

When reviewing a decision of an administrative agency, the High Court may not consider evidence absent in the administrative record unless the evidence (a) is necessary and (b) supplements or explains the evidence contained in the administrative record.A.S.C.A. § 4.1043(a).Taufete’e v. American Samoa Gov’t, 27 A.S.R.2d 80.

A.S.C.A. § 4.1044 provides for a remand where substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the arbitrators’ decision violates of applicable constitutional or statutory provisions, or if it is made upon unlawful procedure. American Samoa Gov’t v. Annandale, 1 A.S.R.3d 19 (App. Div. 1997).

In reviewing an arbitration award, the reviewing Court need not determine the applicable standard of review where it is apparent that the arbitrators failed to follow the specific statutory procedures.American Samoa Gov’t v. Annandale, 1 A.S.R.3d 19 (App. Div. 1997).

A.S.C.A. § 43.1010 requires that the arbitration award contain findings or conclusions of the panel; reflecting how the award was determined.American Samoa Gov’t v. Annandale, 1 A.S.R.3d 19 (App. Div. 1997).

Where an award does not contain specific, written findings or conclusions of the panel, but merely arrives at amount, the award should be remanded.American Samoa Gov’t v. Annandale, 1 A.S.R.3d 19 (App. Div. 1997).

To determine whether a given individual or organization has standing to seek judicial review of a final administrative decision, the petitioner must demonstrate that he, she or it has (a) suffered an “injury in fact” and (b) is arguably within the statute’s “zone of interests.” McGuire v. Zoning Board, 3 A.S.R.3d 15 (App. Div. 1999).

Under A.S.C.A. § 4.1041, reviewable agency decisions or rulings may be instituted by filing a petition in the appellate division within 30 days, but the mere filing of the petition does not automatically stay the administrative decision to be reviewed.Island’s Choice, Inc. v. American Samoa Gov’t, 3 A.S.R.3d 49 (App. Div. 1999).

Once a petition for review is filed, either the agency may grant, or the court may order, a stay on appropriate terms.Island’s Choice, Inc. v. American Samoa Gov’t, 3 A.S.R.3d 49 (App. Div. 1999).

When administrative law matter becomes ripe for review by denial of party’s motion for reconsideration or new trial, petitioner should thereafter file entire record of the administrative proceeding, including transcripts of hearings, within 30 days of request to proceed.Forsgren v. American Samoa Gov’t, 5 A.S.R.3d 13 (App. Div. 2001).

The Trial Division of the High Court is not bound by an erroneous salary calculation determined by the American Samoa Government Wage and Hour Board.Jiang v. Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd., 6 A.S.R.3d 91 (Trial Div. 2002).

§ 5(3)—Scope of Review

Territorial workmen’s compensation statute, under which reviewing court could set aside decision of workmen’s compensation commission only if it was “not in accordance with the law,” precluded court from reversing a finding of fact by the commission for which there was substantial evidence in the record of the commission’s proceeding.A.S.C.A. § 32.0652.Continental Insurance Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 7 A.S.R.2d 105. 5

Court reviewing findings of fact by workmen’s compensation would not reverse a finding unless a reasonable person could not have concluded as the commission did from the evidence in the record.A.S.C.A. § 32.0652.Continental Insurance Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 7 A.S.R.2d 105.

Workmen’s compensation commission decision should be overturned on appeal only if it is not in accordance with the law. A.S.C.A. § 32.0652.Star-Kist Samoa, Inc., v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 7 A.S.R.2d 149.

Workmen’s compensation commission decision should be upheld by reviewing court if supported by substantial evidence, whether or not the court would have reached the same conclusion from the evidence as the commission did.A.S.C.A. § 32.0652.Star-Kist Samoa, Inc., v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 7 A.S.R.2d 149.

Court will not disturb workmen’s compensation commission decision if record contains evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude that the injury and death were work-related and it does not appear that the commission arbitrarily and capriciously disregarded substantial evidence to the contrary. A.S.C.A. §§ 32.0642, 32.0652.Star-Kist Samoa, Inc., v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 7 A.S.R.2d 149.

Court should grant an interlocutory stay of an administrative board decision only if there is a substantial likelihood that the petitioner will prevail on the merits and the petitioner will be greatly or irreparably injured if the stay is not granted.Leti v. Immigration Board, 8 A.S.R.2d 107.

Decision of workmen’s compensation commission may be set aside only if the decision was not made in accordance with law.A.S.C.A. § 32.0652.Continental Insurance Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 8 A.S.R.2d 152.

Finding by workmen’s compensation commission that there was an “injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment” must be supported by substantial evidence.Continental Insurance Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 8 A.S.R.2d 152.

Trial court correctly applied the substantial evidence standard where it upheld a workmen’s compensation commission decision “as long as reasonable people could differ on the facts presented to the Commission.”Continental Insurance Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 8 A.S.R.2d 152.

Substantial evidence test in judicial review of administrative decision is limited to whether a reasoning mind could reasonably have reached the factual conclusion the agency reached, and reviewing court may neither find its own facts nor substitute its own judgment for that of the agency.Continental Insurance Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 8 A.S.R.2d 152.

Finding of fact based on no evidence is an error of law and thus a workmen’s compensation commission award which is not supported by any evidence will be reversed, but where the commission has statutory power to find the facts its findings must be affirmed even if the reviewing court believes the evidence points the other way.Continental Insurance Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 8 A.S.R.2d 152.

Workmen’s compensation commission order should be set aside only if it was based on “whimsy evidence”; order should be affirmed if reasonable people might differ as to the weight of the evidence.Continental Insurance Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 8 A.S.R.2d 152.

Administrative body’s failure to act may be addressed through extraordinary writ proceedings.T.C.R.C.P. Rule 88.Siofele v. Hall, 12 A.S.R.2d 9.

The Workmen’s Compensation Commission’s findings of fact and inferences derived therefrom are to be upheld by the High Court if supported by “substantial evidence,” using a reasonableness standard.Continental Insurance Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 15 A.S.R.2d 130.

That the evidence might also have supported a different conclusion is insufficient to warrant reversal of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission’s conclusions.Continental Insurance Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 15 A.S.R.2d 130.

An interlocutory appeal of an agency action or ruling is available only if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy.A.S.C.A. § 4.1040(c).Sala v. American Samoa Gov’t, 20 A.S.R.2d 80.

A court gives considerable deference to administrative decisions involving an agency’s construction of its governing statute and regulations, unless the court deems the interpretation to be inconsistent with a statutory mandate or to frustrate legislative policy.National Pacific Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of the American Samoa Gov’t’s Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 22 A.S.R.2d 15.

If a Workmen’s Compensation Commission’s statutory interpretation is permissible under the statutes and regulations, the court should defer to the Commission’s decision; but if that construction is inconsistent with a statutory mandate, frustrates legislative policy, or renders the statutes ineffective, the court must set aside the decision.A.S.C.A. § 32.0652(a).National Pacific Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of the American Samoa Gov’t’s Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 22 A.S.R.2d 15.

If made upon unlawful procedure, a decision of the Immigration Board may be reversed, modified, or remanded for further proceedings by the Appellate Division of the High Court.A.S.C.A. § 41.0212(3).Farapo v. American Samoa Gov’t, 23 A.S.R.2d 136.

The fact that this court has held, on one occasion, that substantial compliance with statutory requirements was sufficient, should not yield an expectation that public officials will ordinarily receive judicial recognition of their faulty acts.Tuitasi v. Lauofo, 25 A.S.R.2d 57.

The court is not to reweigh the evidence on factual questions and is to give “appropriate weight to the agency’s experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge.”A.S.C.A. § 4.1043(b).McGuire v. Zoning Board, 26 A.S.R.2d 59.

Post hoc rationalizations for an agency decision, which are absent from the administrative record, are not admissible upon judicial review of the decision.A.S.C.A. § 4.1043(a).Taufete’e v. American Samoa Gov’t, 27 A.S.R.2d 80.

Where evidence consists of affidavits from individuals who were neither employees of the administrative decisionmaking body nor involved in the administrative proceedings, and the affidavits do not purport to clarify or explain evidence from the existing record, the evidence is not supplemental to the administrative record and is not admissible upon judicial review of the decision.A.S.C.A. § 4.1043(a).Taufete’e v. American Samoa Gov’t, 27 A.S.R.2d 80.

Courts will not grant declaratory judgments until administrative remedies have been exhausted unless such administrative remedies are inadequate.Moetoto v. Tauileva, 28 A.S.R.2d 144.

A.S.C.A. § 4.1040 provides for appellate review of a final administrative decision in a “contested case.”In such cases, the Appellate Division may reverse or modify an agency decision if it is contrary to law or based on factual findings which are “clearly erroneous,” or if it is otherwise arbitrary, capricious or abusive of discretion.A.S.C.A. § 4.1043-44.Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

Certain administrative functions, such as the determination of whether an alien should be deported according to existing immigration and probably the determination of whether an alienation of land is improvident within the meaning of A.S.C.A. § 37.0203(c), are beyond the reach of any judicial review because they are committed to agency discretion by law.Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

An administrative decision does not concern a contested case under A.S.C.A § 4.1040 when a party was not represented at Land Commission hearings and could not contest the lease.Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

Appellate courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider issues that were not presented to the administrative agency.Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

There is a strong presumption in favor of judicial review of agency action, which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that the Fono intended to cut off review above the agency level.The court is not convinced that the Fono intended the Territorial Correctional Facility to conduct prison affairs beyond the purview of the High Court.A.S.G. v. Ki, 31 A.S.R.2d 118.

Under A.S.C.A. § 4.1044, the court may reverse, modify or remand the decision of an agency if substantial rights of a petitioner have been prejudiced by an agency’s improper or unlawful decision under this statute.Kruse v. Personnel Advisory Bd., 2 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 1998).

Under A.S.C.A. §§ 3.0208(c), 4.1040-.1044 and 10.0282, the court has authority to review administrative decisions in the procurement process; the review is confined to the record, and to questions of law, not fact.B.H.P. Petroleum South Pac., Inc.v. American Samoa Gov’t, 2 A.S.R.3d 10 (App. Div. 1998).

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the High Court must, in most instances confine its review of administrative decisions to the record and decision as developed and issued by the agency.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Court may not substitute its judgment on the weight of the facts for that of the agency and the Court is required to give appropriate weight to the agency’s experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

When reviewing an administrative decision, the High Court must first determine if substantial rights of the aggrieved party have been prejudiced by the agency’s decision, but even with such a finding, the Court may only reverse, modify or remand the agency’s decision if it finds the decision was unlawful, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary, capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

Compensation orders issued by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission are immediately reviewable through injunctive proceedings against the Commissioner brought before the Trial Division of the High Court.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

Immigration Board decisions receive expedited limited judicial review under appeals before the Appellate Division of the High Court in which the Board is the named respondent.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

The effective scope of any legislative act is limited to the subject embraced in its title and matters properly connected thereto.Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

Review of a final administrative decision for errors of law is a matter ordinarily within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Appellate Division of the High Court.Jiang v. Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd., 6 A.S.R.3d 91 (Trial Div. 2002).

§ 5(4)—Disposition

Court would not exercise its power to render a declaratory judgment where the only relief it could grant would require the court to assume a supervisory role over administrative processes.Election Office v. Tuika, 9 A.S.R.2d 1.

Chief election officer did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying petitioner’s eligibility for election where, although petitioner supplied all the information requested on candidacy forms, he refused reasonable requests by the chief election officer for further information relevant to his eligibility.Siofele v. Shimasaki, 9 A.S.R.2d 3.

Court could grant review by mandamus of chief election officer’s determination that petitioner was ineligible to run for elective office, where statutory scheme was silent as to appeals procedure and circumstances appeared to render any alternative review procedures inadequate.T.C.R.C.P. Rules 87, 88.Siofele v. Shimasaki, 9 A.S.R.2d 3.

Court would not compel chief election officer to find the petitioner a bona fide resident where petitioner was not on the current voter registration lists, was not present in the territory during the period at issue, refused to supply additional information requested by the chief election officer, and was identified as a registered voter in another jurisdiction during the period at issue.Siofele v. Shimasaki, 9 A.S.R.2d 3.

The Workmen’s Compensation Commission’s decision that the hospital’s off-island medical-referral procedure does not apply to those covered by the workmen’s compensation statute is a permissible interpretation of applicable statutes and regulations, so the court will defer to that decision.A.S.C.A. § 11.0312.National Pacific Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of the American Samoa Gov’t’s Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 22 A.S.R.2d 15.

A preliminary injunction is unwarranted when an environmental organization fails to plead specific harm to itself or its members and when it did not seek a stop order from the territorial Development Planning Office.A.S.C.A. §§ 4.1040, 24.0505(c).Le Vaomatua v. American Samoa Gov’t, 23 A.S.R.2d 11.

Courts reviewing federal agency actions under the Administrative Procedures Act are limited to compelling agency actions or holding actions unlawful.Courts cannot grant monetary relief.Island’s Choice, Inc. v. American Samoa Gov’t, 5 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 2001).

In American Samoa, pecuniary relief is not available in judicial review of administrative proceedings.Island’s Choice, Inc. v. American Samoa Gov’t, 5 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 2001).

If a disappointed bidder wishes for monetary relief, the proper course of action is not through appellate review of administrative proceedings, but rather through such means as a trial de novo.Island’s Choice, Inc. v. American Samoa Gov’t, 5 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 2001).

§ 5(5)—Limitations on Review

Judicial review of administrative action is limited by the requirement that there be an actual, live controversy to adjudicate.Island’s Choice, Inc. v. American Samoa Gov’t, 5 A.S.R.3d 3 (App. Div. 2001).

A “trial de novo” can only be conducted by the A.L.J. where there was a prior administrative decision or hearing and the A.L.J. has been specifically authorized by constitutionally enacted legislation to conduct and decide a final administrative hearing on a contested case. Nat’l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm’r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Get In Touch!

About Us