* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUN 3 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: CURTIS WESLEY GARRETT; JANET LAVERNE GARRETT,

Debtors.

______________________________ CURTIS WESLEY GARRETT; JANET LAVERNE GARRETT,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. NEBRASKA HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN PROGRAM, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 02-6304 (BAP No. WO-02-27) (BAP)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , HENRY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral-2-

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Curtis Wesley and Janet Laverne Garrett (Debtors) appeal from the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) holding that the bankruptcy court properly denied them a discharge of their student l oan debts because they failed to satisfy the “undue hardship” exception under 11 U.S .C. § 523(a)(8). We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) and aff irm. The BAP opinion fully sets out the relevant facts a nd issues raised in this appeal and we need not repeat them here. “In our r eview of BAP decisions, we independently review the bankruptcy court decision.” In re Albrecht , 233 F.3d 1258, 1260 (10th Cir. 2000). We apply a de novo st andard of review to its conclusions of law. Id. ; In re Woodcock , 45 F. 3d 363, 367 (10th Cir. 1995) (noting that we review de novo the question whetherloans are dischargeable under the undue hardship exception). But the issue raised here challenges the bankruptcy court’s findings as to the Debtors’ circ umstances. “Unless the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are clearly err oneous, we must embrace them.” Turney v. FDIC , 18 F.3d 865, 868 (10th Cir. 1994). The parties did not question the applicable law bel ow. Debtors continue to assert that the bankruptcy court’s factual finding that the Debtors’ monthly income is sufficient to enable them to maintain a m inimal standard of living as-3-

well as to repay the $44,500 student-loan debt is an abuse of discretion because some evidence in the record supports their claim th at they are not able to maintain a minimal standard of living and repay the debt. B ut that assertion does not state the proper standard of review. As the BAP pointed out, the bankruptcy court’s finding must be upheld unless it is clearly erroneo us. That means that we must accept the bankruptcy court’s determination unless it is “completely devoid of minimum evidentiary support displaying some hue of credibility, or [] bears no rational relationship to the supportive evidentiary data.” Gillman v. Scientific Res. Prods., Inc. (In re Mama D’Angelo, Inc.) , 55 F.3d 552, 555 (10th Cir. 1995) (quotations omitted). We have carefully considered the record, the applic able law, and the arguments of the parties. For substantially the same reasons stated in the BAP opinion filed August 21, 2002, we conclude that the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and that its deci sion must be upheld. The judgment of the United States Bankruptcy Appell ate Panel is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge