Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-99-07108/USCOURTS-ca10-99-07108-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

AUG 28 2000 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

SHERON L. HARRISON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V. 

DEPARTMENT OF INTE IOR, 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Jack Chaney, Acting Area Director, 

Office of Tribal Services; JACK 

CHANEY, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 99-7108 

(D.C. No. 98-CV-228-S) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BRORBY, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); I 0th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court 

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 99-7108 Document: 010110893941 Date Filed: 08/28/2000 Page: 1
Plaintiff-Appellant Sheron L. Harrison appeals from the district court's 

order upholding the dec ision of the United States Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) denying her a Certificate of Degree of Indian 

Blood (CDIB). 1 We affirm. 

In January 1997, Harrison submitted an application for a CDIB and for 

tribal membership to the Choctaw Nation on behalf of herself and of other 

relatives who are not involved in this appeal. She claimed entitlement to a CDIB 

based on her purported lineal descent from Cyrus H. Kingsbury, who was enrolled 

as a member of the Choctaw tribe on the Final Choctaw Rolls. 

The Choctaw Nation, acting on behalf of the BIA, denied Harrison 's 

request. It stated that although Cyrus Kingsbury was enrolled as a member of the 

Choctaw tribe, he obtained this status as a white person adopted by the tribe 

(referred to as an "AW" or "adopted white") rather than by possessing a pccific 

quantum of Indian blood. Harrison appealed this decision to the Muskogee Area 

Director of the BIA, who reached the same conclusion as the Choctaw Nation and 

denied the request for a CDIB.

2 The Director further found that Ida Kingsbury, 

"Certificates of Degree of Indian Blood ("CDIBs") are issued by the BIA 

and are the BIA's certification that an individual possesses a specific quantum of 

Indian blood. A CDIB entitles the holder to participate in some government 

assistance programs." Davis v. United States, 192 F.3d 951 , 956 (10th Cir. 1999). 

2 The Choctaw Nation also found that it had no record that Cyrus H. 

( continued .. . ) 

-2-

Appellate Case: 99-7108 Document: 010110893941 Date Filed: 08/28/2000 Page: 2
Lucy Ann McDermott, and Annie Keel, other ancestors noted by Harrison in her 

application, were lis ed on the rolls as freedmen, with no Indian blood ascribed. 

Harrison thereafter sought review of the Director's decision in the district 

court. On August 23, 1999, after extensive briefing on the matter, the district 

court issued a well-reasoned order affirming the Director's decision. On appeal 

from this decision, Harrison makes two basic arguments: first, that the district 

court failed to.review the full administrative record in reaching its decision; and 

second, that the district court erred in affirming the BIA because she is entitled to 

a CDIB based on her descent from Cyrus H. Kingsbury. 

Appellant's complaints concerning the record lack merit. She first claims 

that in making its decision, the BIA considered documents in addition to those she 

submitted, and did not provide them to the district court as part of the 

administrative record. In order to conduct p ope· judicial review, a reviewing 

court should have the full administrative record before it. See Citizens to 

Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402,420 (1971), overruled on 

2

( .•. continued) 

Kingsbury had any children. For this reason, the Muskogee Area Director 

theorized that Harrison might be related to a "Si Kingsbury," a white man or 

freedman belonging to the tribe who was listed as the father of Ida Kingsbury. 

Although Harrison believes that Si Kingsbury and Cyrus H. Kingsbury are the 

same person, the Director apparently concluded that they were two different 

people. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 99-7108 Document: 010110893941 Date Filed: 08/28/2000 Page: 3
other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977). We note, however, 

that the BIA submitted what it claims was the entire administrative record to the 

district court. See R. doc. 78; Appellees' Br. at 22-23. Harrison fails to specify 

which specifi c documents allegedly relied upon by the BIA are missing from the 

record. Absent a more specific claim of error, we are unable to determine that the 

administrative record is incomplete. 3 

Relying on dicta in Sac & Fox Tribe v. Andrus, 645 F.2d 858, 861 (10th 

Cir. 1981 ), Harrison next argues that the BIA failed to make plain its course of 

inquiry through proper organization of the administrative record, and instead 

cobbled together a disorganized administrative record that is unsuitable for our 

review. We disagree. The administrative record is adequate for our review and 

adequately discloses the evidence relied upon by the BIA in reaching its decision. 

Finally, Harrison argues that the record contains documents that should not 

have been submitted to the district court. This claim fails for the same reason as 

her claim that the administrative record is incomplete: she fails to identify any 

3 In her reply brief, Harrison identifies a specific document that the BIA 

all egedly reli ed upon in deci ding her claim, known as the "Proof of Heirship." 

While this document is not part of the BIA' s administrative record, it appears to 

be contained elsewhere in the record before the district court. See R. doc. 26, ex. 

1. Even if the BIA considered this document in deciding her claim, an assertion 

for which Harrison offers no proof, our de novo review of the document 

persuades us that its absence from the administrative record was at most, harmless 

error. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 99-7108 Document: 010110893941 Date Filed: 08/28/2000 Page: 4
specific documents that were submitted to the district court but should not have 

been considered. 

We turn to Harrison's challenge to the merits of the BIA's decision. Under 

the Administrative Procedure Act, we review administrative decisions de novo, 

according no deference to the district court's decision. See Mt. Emmons Mining 

Co.v.Babbitt, 117F.3d 1167, 1170(10thCir. 1997). Wemaysetasidethe 

BIA 's action only if it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with the law." Id. (quotation omitted). Upon careful 

review of the briefs, the record and the applicable law, we conclude that Harrison 

has failed to show that the BIA' s action should be set aside under this standard. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Harrison's "Petition to Expedite" is DENIED as moot. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Michael R. Murphy 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 99-7108 Document: 010110893941 Date Filed: 08/28/2000 Page: 5
Appellate Case: 99-7108 Document: 010110893941 Date Filed: 08/28/2000 Page: 6