1 P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 4259

___________ E L I Z AB E T H P I CH AR DO,

Pet i t i oner

v. V IR G IN IS L A N D S C O M M IS S IO N E R O F L A B O R ; C O O L IT , IN C . d /b /a A G A V E T E R R A C E R E S T A U R A N T , R e sp o n d e n ts

___________ O n W ri t of

C erti o rari from the S u p rem e C o u rt fort he V i r gi n I s l ands ( S. C t

. C i v. N o. 2007- 061)
A r gued D ece m ber2, 2009

Be f o r e : M c KE E , Ch i e f J u d g e , F UE NT E S , a n d NYGAA RD , C i r cui tJ udges2 ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y8, 2010)

J oel H

. H ol t , E s q. ( A r gued) 2132 C om panySt r eet C h ristia n ste d , S t. C ro ix U ni t ed St at es V i r gi n I s l ands , 00820
C ouns el forPet i t i onerE l i zabe t h Pi char do
V i ncentF. Fr aze r , E s q. E l l i ot tM

. D avi s , E s q. R i char d S. D avi s , E s q. ( A r gued) D epart m entof J us t i ce 34- 38 K r onpr i nds ens G ade G E R S B ui l di ng, Second Fl oor St

. T hom as U ni t ed St at es V i r gi n I s l ands , 00802
C o u n se l f

o r R e sp o n d e n t G o v e rn m e n t o f th e V irg in I s l ands

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: E l i zabe t h Pi char do w as t erm i nat ed fr om herempl oym ent3 atA gave Terr ace R es t aur anti n St

. T hom as aft ervi ol at i ng a s er i es of w or kpl ace rul es and co m m i t t i ng an ac tof i ns ubor di nat i on. She fi l ed a c om pl ai ntw i t h t he V i r gi n I s l ands D epart m entof Labor( “D O L ”) undert he t err i t o r y ’ s W r ongful D i s char ge A ct

. T he D O L found thatPi char do w as fi r ed for c a u se a n d d e n ied h e r c laim . T h e S u p e rio r C o u rt o f th e V irg in I s l ands uphel d t he D O L ’ s deci s i on and r ej ect ed Pi char do’ s due process cl ai m s. P i chardo app eal ed t he den i al of her due process c laim s to th e n e w ly -c re a ted S u p re m e C o u rt o f th e V irg in I s l ands , w hi ch af

fi r m ed. I n t hi s , t he fi r s t cas e i n w hi ch w e have g ran te d cert i or ar i t o r evi ew a dec i s i on of the V i r gi n I s l ands S u p re m e C o u rt, w e s e t f o rth o u r sta n d a rd o f

re v iew a n d h o ld t hatw e s hal l defe r to d eci s i ons of the Supr eme C our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands on m at t er s of l ocal l aw unl es s w e fi nd t hem t o be m an ifestl y erro n eo u s. A p p ly ing this stan d ard to P ic h ard o ’s c a s e , we wi l l a f

f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n o f

t h e Vi r g i n I s l a n d s S u p r e me C o u rt

. I. Pi char do began w or k as a s erver and cas hi er at A g ave T e rr a c e R e s ta u ra n t o n A u g u s t 1 2 , 1 9 9 8

. B etw een N ovember 19 98 and M arch 19 99 , she recei ved fou r di sci pli naryw ri t e-ups. Pi char do w as s ubs equent l y fi r ed i n A pr i l 1999. T he r eas ons for thes e w ri te-up s inc lud ed : sm o k ing aro u n d the re stau ra n t’s lau n d rya re a a n d lea v in g c ig a re tte b u tts o n th e g ro u n d , fa ili n g to pr oper l ycl ean he r s t at i on at t he end of w or k, fai l i ng t o r epor tfor a sch ed u led sh ift , an d ref u sing to se t t ab les. F o ll o w ing the th ir d w r i t e- up, Pi char do w as s us pended for t w o s hi ft s . Pi char do t hen r ece i ved another di s ci pl i nary not i ce and w as s us pended for al l egedl y t hr eat eni ng t o s ue herempl oy er . T he w r i t e- up s t at ed th a t sh e w a s s p re a d in g ill w ill a n d “ c a u sin g m o re p ro b lem s w ith4 s e r v i c e t h r o u g h o u tt h e r e s t a u r a n t

. ” ( J

. A. at 12 5

. ) D ur i ng t he s ubs equentper i od betw een thi s s us pens i on and hert erm i nat i on, Pi char do di d not r etur n t o w or k. She di d, h o w e v e r, w rite f

o u r se p a ra te m e m o s to A g a v e , e a c h d a ted A p ril 7, 19 99 , res po nd i ng t o the di sci pli naryw ri t e-ups. E ach of t hese m emos pr offe r ed expl anat i ons fort he beha vi orci t ed i n t he wr i t e - u p s . Ag a v e , i n i t s wr i t t e n c l o s i n g s t a t e me n t a t t h e DOL hear i ng r egar di ng Pi char do’ s t erm i nat i on, cl ai m ed that i tdi d not r ece i ve anyof t hes e r es pons es unt i l t he dat e of the hea r i ng. T he r es po n s e s wer e a l s o n o ti n Pi c h a r d o ’ s p e r s o n n e l f i l e . Aga ve con t end ed thatt heyw ere “con j ured up ” l on g aftert he inci den t s. (J. A

. at 14 4

. ) Pi char do w as di s char ged on A pr i l 1 0, 1999 and fi l ed a compl ai ntw i t h t he D O L , pur s uantt o t he V i r gi n I s l ands W r ongful D i s char ge A ct , V

. I

. C ode A nn. t i t

. 2 4, §§ 76- 79, on A pr i l 12, 1999. T he compl ai ntas s er ts tha t the r eas ons A gave gave t o Pi char do for her t erm i nat i on “w er e ‘he ar s ay ’ t hatI had s t at ed I w as goi ng t o s ue t he re s t aur ant , w hi ch I t ot al l ydi s agr ee w i t h t hi s r eas o n s [sic]

. ” (Id

. at101. ) A tt he t i m e of he r compl ai nt , a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on or der in a s epar at e mat t er pr ohi bi t ed the D O L fr om hol di ng hear i ngs . I t w as l i ft ed on J une 30, 2000, butt he A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge ( t he “A L J ”) di d not h o ld a h e a ri n g u n til J a n u a ry 1 4 , 2 0 0 2

. B oth p arti es su b m itted e x h ibit s an d , tho u g h theyb o th ha d the o ppor tuni t yt o cal l w i t nes s es , Pi char do pr es ent ed onl yher ow n t es t i m onyat the hea r i ng. N o t r ans cr i ptexi s t s , but according t o the A L J’ s deci si on , A gav e cal l ed f iv e w i t nesses: fou r A gav e em plo y e e s an d the r est aurant ’s ow ner. A l l t hese w i t nes s es , acc or di ng t o t he A L J , t es t i fi ed aboutPi char do’ s poor w or k per for m ance , negat i ve att i tude, t hr eat s t o co- w or ker s , and t he w r i t i ng of i m pr operor dert i cket s . T heyal s o r ecount ed num er ous w arni ngs gi ven t o heraboutherbehavi or . Pi char do test ifi e d an d , ac co rdin g to the A L J, claim ed that A g av e’s w i t nes s es w er e l y i ng. A rul i ng w as i s s ued near l y t w o y ear s aft er t he one- day hear i ng, on D ece m ber 16, 2003. Pi ch ard o hadA t the ti m e, t he Super i orC our tw as know n as t he 1 T erri tor i al C our t

. O n Sept ember30, 2004, t he V i r gi n I s l ands L egi s l atur e pas s ed B i l l N o. 25- 0213 ( eff ect i ve O ct o b er 29, 2 0 0 4 ), ch a n g in g th e n a m e o f th e T e rrito ria l C o u rt o f th e V irg in Is l and s t o the Su peri or C ou rtof the V i rgi n Isl and s. Th e DO L s u b mi t t e d , i n s u p p o r t o f i t s r e s p o n s e t o t he 2 Super i orC ou rt ’ s or der , an af fi davi tfr om “the per s on char ged w i t h t r ans cr i bi ng t he t aped r ecor d of the pr ocee di ngs . ” ( J

. A

. at 53 .) It stat ed thatt he tapes could no tbe tr anscri bed becau se “[ t] h ere are sim p lytoo m an yinco m p let e q u esti o n s an d an sw ers and i ncompl et e s ent ence s . ” (I d. ) W i t houtnot i ng t he s our ce of its c o n c lu sio n , the S u p e rio r C o u rt sta ted th a t a tra n sc rip t co u ld n o t b e g e n e ra te d “ b e c a u s e th e re c o rd in g w a s o f p o o r q u a lity.” (Id

. at 34

. ) 5 w r i t t en the C om m i s s i onerof Lab o r on O ct ober6, 2003 c o m p la in in g a b o u t th is d e la y . T he A L J found thatA gave ha d m et its bur den and ha d demonst r at ed bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hatPi char do w as fi r ed forcaus e und er V

. I. C o de A nn. t i t

. 24, § 76( a)

. T he A L J found thatt he evi dence s at i s fi ed § 76( a) ( 4) , al l ow i ng d ischarge of an em ploy ee “w ho w i l l full yand i ntent i on al ly di s obey s r eas onabl e and l aw ful rul es , or der s , and i ns t ruct i ons of t he empl oy er , ” as w el l as § 76( a) ( 9) , w hi ch appl i es t o an e m p lo y e e “ w h o se c o n d u c t is su c h th a t itlea d s to th e re f u sa l, re lu c ta n c e o r in a b ility o f o th e r e m p lo y e e s to w o rk w ith h im .” V

. I

. C ode A n n . t i t

. 24, § 76( a) ( 4) & ( 9)

. T he C om m i s s i oner uphel d t he A L J ’ s deci s i on. Pi ch ard o fi l ed pr o s e forr evi ew befor e the Super i or C our t of t he V i r gi n I s l ands on February24, 2004. P i char do v. 1 B e n ja m in , C iv. N o . 8 5 -20 0 4 (V

. I. S u p er. C t. M ar. 30 , 2 0 0 7 ). S h e inv o k ed the S u p erior C o u rt ’s j u ri sd ict ion p u rs u a n t to V

. I. C ode A nn. t i t

. 5, § 1421, w hi ch pr ovi des for j udi ci al r evi ew of a d mi n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s . T h e S u p e r i o rCo u r to r d e r e d t h e DOL t o pr oduce a t r ans cr i ptof i t s hear i ng. T he D O L i ns t ead fi l ed a R es pons e t o O r dert o Pr ovi de R ec o rd of Pr ocee di ngs , w hi ch s t at ed that “the t ape made of the pr ocee di ng i n t hi s m at t eri s not tr a n s c ri b a b le a n d th e re f o re c a n n o t b e p ro v id e d f o r t h e C o u rt .” (J .A . a t 5 1 .) 26 Pi char do, r epr esen ted bycouns el , fi l ed a mot i on on S ep te m ber28, 2004 t o r emand hercas e t o t he D O L fora new e v id e nti aryheari ng . A gav e op po sed t he m oti on , argui ng bo th t hati tw oul d be pr ej udi ced gi ven the pas s age of t i m e and t hat t he document aryevi dence i n t he r ecord w as suffi ci entfort he cour tt o r evi ew t he D O L ’ s deci s i on. T he Super i orC our tdi d not expr es s l yrul e on the mot i on t o r emand, but i t s t at ed i n a br i efi ng or dert hati t w as “i n r ece i pt of t he r ecor d of pr ocee di ng fr om t he D epart m entof Labor

. ” (I d. at61. ) Pi char do fi l ed a c ouns el ed br i ef w i t h t he Super i or C our t and pr es ent ed t hr ee i s s ues f or r evi ew : ( 1) w hether her due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed byt he D O L ’ s d elay i n r ender i ng a dec i s i on; ( 2) w hetherherdue p ro c e ss rig h ts w e re v io la ted b yth e D O L ’s f a ilu re to m a in tain th e “ tap e s o f

th e tra n sc rip t o f

th e p ro c e e d in g s” a n d its pr oduct i on of onl yt he admi ni s t r at i ve fi le a s the r ecor d of the pr ocee di ngs ; and ( 3) w hetherA gave f ai l ed t o m ee ti t s bur den underthe V i r gi n I s l ands W r ongful D i s char ge A ct , V

. I

. C ode A n n . tit. 2 4 , § 7 6 , e t. s e q . T h e S u p e rio r C o u rt a f

f irm e d th e D O L ’s d e c isio n . F irst, i tacknow l edged that“[the] case h as been pl agued by u n e x p lain e d d e lays,” b u t itd e ter m in e d th a t “ a w rit o f re v iew is n o t th e p ro p e r m e th o d to a d d re s s s u c h c o m p la in ts .” (J .A . a t 3 7 .) Such del ay s , t he courtfound, have l i t t l e t o d o w i t h w hether A g av e h ad c a u s e to term inate P icha rdo

. S ec o n d , the c o u rt d e c l a r e d t h a ti twou l d r e s o l v e t h e t r a n s c r i p ti s s u e b ya s s u mi ng al l object i ons had bee n t i m el yr ai s ed, “af for di ng Pet i t i oner pr ot ect i on of cl ai m s t hat s he m ayhave l os tdue t o t he abs ence of s ai d t r ans cr i pt

. ” (I

d. ) T h ir d , the co u rt u p h eld t h e A L J’s det erm i nat i on t hatA gave di d notvi ol at e t he W r ongful D i s char ge A ct , beca us e i thad gr ounds t o t erm i nat e Pi char do for di s obey i ng herempl oy er ’ s i ns t ruct i ons . W hi l e t he courtnot ed th a t A g a v e p re se n ted w itn e ss e s w h o tes tifie d to th is e f f e c t, i t d id notexpl ai n how i tr evi ew ed thi s t es t i m onyi n t he ab sen ce of a t r ans cr i pt

. I t s anal y s i s focus ed on P i char do’ s cont ent i on t hatt he w i t nes se s, w ho w orked f or A gav e, w ere i nter est ed w i t nesses. T he courtconcl uded thati tw as noterr orfort he A L J t o r el yon the testi m o n yo f a n interested w itn ess a n d that the A L J’s c re d ib il ityd e ter m in a tio n m u st b e a c c e p ted u n les s “ c o n tra ryto s ound r eas on. ” (Id

. at39. ) T he courtfur t h er not ed that P ich ardo ha d co nced ed thatA gav e “of fered evidence o f sm a ll7 i nfr act i ons . ” (I

d. ) T he ac cumul at i on of thes e i nfr act i ons , t he cour tfound, “w as t he basi s for t he t erm i nat i on. ” (I d. a t 3 9 -4 0 .) T her efor e, i tconcl uded, t he A L J ’ s deci s i on w as “s uppor t ed by r eas onabl e evi dence

. ” (Id

. at 40

. ) P ich a rd o a p p e a led to th e V irg in Isla n d s S u p re m e C o u rt. P ich a rd o v . B e n

ja m in , C i v. N o. 2 0 0 7 -061, 2008 W L 6054386 ( V

. I

. Sup. C t

. A pr . 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 ). She chal l enged the Super i or C our t ’ s r efus al t o cons i der herdue pr oces s cl ai m s , butdi d not chal l enge the rul i ng on t he m er i t s . T he S upr eme C our thel d t hat i tc o u l d n o ta d d r e s s Pi c h a r d o ’ s a r g u me n tt h a ts h e was d e n i ed d u e p roc ess d u e to th e d elay s b ef o re the D O L

. R ely ing o n V

. I. C ode A nn. t i t

. 24, § 70, w h ich pr ovi des forj udi ci al r evi ew of D O L deci s i ons , t he Supr eme C our thel d t hatbot h i tand the S u p erior C o u rtw ere li m it ed to co n side ri n g issue s raised b ef o re th e D e p a rtm e n t o f

L a b o r. S e c tio n 7 0 p ro v id e s th a t: ( a) A nyper s on aggr i eved bya fi nal or derof the C o m m iss io n e r g ra n tin g o r d e n y in g in w h o le o r in par tt he r el i ef s oughtm ay obt ai n a r evi ew of s uch or derbyfi l i ng in t he Super i orC our tort he D is tr ic t C o u rt , w ith in 3 0 d a y s o f its is s u a n c e , a w r i t t en pet i t i on pr ay i ng t hat s uch dec i s i on of the C om m i s s i onerbe modi fi ed ors etas i de. (b) N o o b

jecti o n that h as no t b ee n u rge d b e f o re t he C om m issi oners hal l be cons i der ed byt he Cou r t u n l e s s t h e f

a i l u r e o r n e g l e c t t o u r g e s uch o b jecti o n is ex cu sed b ec au se o f e x tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance s . T he fi ndi ngs of t he C om m i s s i oner as t o t h e f

a c t s , i f s u p p o r t e d b ys u b s t a n t i al evi dence , s hal l be conc l us i ve. Focus i ng on § 70( b) , t he Supr eme C our t found thatt he i s s ue of del ayhad notbeen r aised as an obj ect i on befor e the D O L , nor wa s t h e r e e v i d e n c e P i c h a r d o “ t o o k a n y a c t i o n t o i n d u c e t h e DOL to is s u e its d e c is io n in th e m a n y m o n th s f o llo w in g th e h e a ri n g .” 2008 W L 6054386, at *2. T he courtfur t hernot ed thatPi char do di d notal l ege a ny“extr aor di naryci r cumst ance ” thatpr event ed h e r f ro m ra is in g a n o b

je c tio n . T he Supr eme C our tal s o r ej ect ed Pi char do’ s cont ent i on th a t h e r p e titio n s h o u ld b e g o v e rn e d b yV .I. C o d e A n n . tit. 5 , §T he Supr eme Court di d not addr es s t he fact that 3 P icha rdo ’s pe ti ti o n so u g h t a w ri t of rev ie w p u rsua n t t o V

. I. C ode A n n . t i t

. 5, § 1421. M or eover , al t hough herpet i t i on i nvoked 5 V

. I

. C

. § 1421, t he S uper i orC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng t he w r i t s i m pl y s t at ed t hat Pi char do’ s pet i t i on w as br oughtpur s uant to T errit o ri al C o u rtR u le 15 an d V

. I. C o d e A n n . ti t. 2 4 , § 7 0 (a). (J. A

. at 43 , 4 7 -48

. ) In an o rde r d ated A u g u st 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 , the S u p rem e C o u rt 4 d e n ied P ich a rd o ’s p e tit io n f o r re h e a rin g . It reje c ted h e r c laim th a t h e r O c to b e r 6 , 2 0 0 3 lette r to th e C o m m iss io n e r of L a b o r, in whi c h s h e c o mpl a i n e d a b o u t t h e ALJ ’ s d e l a y i n i s s ui ng a d ec isi o n , co n sti tuted an o b jecti o n u n d er § 7 0 (b ). T h e c o u rt f o u n d that the lett er d id n o t “pro p erlyu rge [] P icha rdo ’s 8 1422, r athert han V

. I

. C ode A nn. t i t

. 24, § 70. Pi char do, i n her pet i t i on befor e t he S uper i or C our t , had soughtr evi ew pur s uant to V .I. C o d e A n n . ti t. 5, § 1 4 2 1 , w h ich p ro v id e s th a t: A nypar t yto anypr ocee di ng befor e orbyany offi cer , boar d, comm i s s i on, author i t y , ort r i bunal m ayhave the deci s i on ordet erm i nat i on t her eof re v iew e d f

o r e rro rs th e re in a s p re sc rib e d in th is chapt er and rul es of cour t

. U pon t he r evi ew , t he cour tm ayr evi ew anyi nt erm edi at e or der i nvol vi ng t he mer i t s nece s s ar i l yaff ect i ng t he deci s i on or det er m i nat i on s ought t o be r evi ew ed. 3 S e c tio n 1 4 2 2 o u tli n e s th e g ro u n d s f o r re v iew u n d e r § 1 4 2 1 : T he wr i t o f r e v i e w s h a l l b e a l l o wed i n a l l cas es w h e r e t h e r e i s n o a p p e a l o r o t h e r p l a i n , s p e e d y, an d ad eq u ate rem e d y , an d w h ere the o ff icer, boar d, comm i s s i on, author i t y , ort r i bunal in t he exer ci s e of hi s ori t s functi o ns appea r s t o have exer ci s ed suc h funct i ons err oneous l y , ort o have exc e e d e d h i s o ri t s j u r i s d i c t i o n , t o t h e i n j u r yof s om e s ubs t ant i al r i ghtof the pl ai nt i ff. T he Supr eme C our t hel d t hat § 1422, w hi ch provi des a gene r al w rit o f re v ie w , w a s n o t ap p lica b le b e c a u se V .I. C o d e A n n . ti t. 24, § 70, a nar r ow er pr ovi s i on, s peci fi cal l ypr ovi di ng forr evi ew fr om deci s i ons byt he D O L , appl i ed. 4obj ect i ons befor e t he C om m i s s i oner of L abor , as r equi r ed by[§ 70( b) ]

. ” ( J

. A

. at12. ) I tconcl uded thatt he l et t erm er el ys ought to in d u c e th e C o m m iss io n e r to is su e a n o p in io n , rath e r th a n to r ai s e a c ons t i tut i onal cl ai m , and ac cor di ngl ydeni ed r ehea r i ng. T he s t atut e gr ant i ng us cert i or ar i j ur i s di ct i on p r ovi des 5 th a t:
T he r e l a t i o n s b e t wee n t h e c o u r t s e s t a b l i s h e d by t he C ons t i tut i on orl aw s of the U ni t ed St at es and th e c o u rts es tab lish e d b y lo c a l law w ith re sp e c t to appea l s , cert i or ar i , r emoval of ca us es , the i s s uance o f w r i t s of habe as corpus , and other m at t er s orpr ocee di ngs s hal l be governed byt he l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es per t ai ni ng to t he rel at i on s bet w een the court s of the U nit ed S t at es, i ncludi ng t he S up rem e C ou rtof the U nit ed S t at es, an d the c o u rt s o f th e se v era l States in su ch m att ers a n d p ro c e e d in g s: P r ovi ded , T hat for the fir st fi ft een y ear s fol l ow i ng t he es t abl i s hm entof the appel l at e cour tauthor i zed bys ect i on 1611( a) of t hi s ti tl e, the U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s for t he Thi r d C i r cui t s hal l have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew byw r i to f cer t i or ar i al l fi nal deci s i ons of the hi ghes tcour tof the V i r gi n I s l ands fr om w hi ch a deci s i on coul d be had. T he J udi ci al C ounci l of the T hi r d C i r cui ts hal l s ubm i tr eport s t o t he C om m it tee on Ener gyand N atur al R es our ces of t he Senat e and the C om m i t t ee on N atur al R e s o u r c e s o f t h e Hou s e o f Re p r e s e n t a t i v e s at i nt er val s of fi ve y ear s fol l ow i ng t he es t abl i s hm ent of s uch appe l l at e courtas t o w het heri thas d e v e lo p e d su f

f icie n t in stitu tio n a l trad iti o n s to j us t i fy di r ect r evi ew byt he Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es fr om al l s u ch fi nal deci s i ons . T he 9 Pi char do pet i t i oned pro se f o ra wr i to f

c e r t i o r a r i f

r om t hi s C our t and r eques t ed t he appoi nt m ent of couns el

. U nder48 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 1 3 , the T h ir d C ir cu ith as tem p o raryce rt io rari j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rf

i n a l d e c i s i o n s o f t h e Vi r g i n I s l a n d s S u p r e me C our t

. B yor derdat ed February12, 2009, w e gr ant ed

5U n it ed S tat es C o u rto f A p p ea ls fo r th e T h ir d C i r cui ts hal l have j ur i s di ct i on t o pr om ul gat e rul es n e c e ss a ryto c a rryo u t th e p ro v isio n s o f th is s ect i on. 4 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 1 3

. W e h av e d es cr i bed the R evi s ed O r gani c A ctas “the 6 b a s ic c h a rt e r o f

g o v e rn m e n t” f

o r t h e V ir g in Is la n d s . B r ow v. 10 P ich a rd o ’s p e tit io n o n th re e sp e c if ic is su e s: ( 1) t he mer i t s of pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s t hatexce s s i ve del ay s and the abs ence of a tr ans cr i ptof her hear i ng befor e the V ir g i n I s l ands D epart m entof L abor(“D O L ”) depr i ved herof due pr oces s or ot herw i s e requi r ed the V i r gi n I s l ands Super i or Cou r tt o r e ma n d t h e ma t t e rt o t h e DO L; (2) w h ethe r th e V ir g in Island s S u p rem e C o u rt e r r e d i n n o ta d d r e s s i n g p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c l a i ms r egar di ng t he abs ence of a tr ans cr i pt ; and ( 3) w heth er p et i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s ar e of the ki nd t hat , under[V

. I

. C ode A nn. t i t

. 24, § 70( b) ] , m ay notbe cons i der ed on a w r i tof r evi ew unl es s t hey have be en r ai s ed i n t he D O L i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance (w h i c h m i g h t d e p e n d , in tera lia , on w hethert he D O L h as ju ri sd ict ion to ad jud icate su ch cla im s ). ( J

. A

. at 1. ) W e al s o gr ant ed Pi char do’ s m ot i on forappoi nt m ent o f c o u n s e l. II. T hi s i s t he fi r s tt i m e w e have gr ant ed ce r t i or ar i t o r evi ew a d e c is io n o f

th e n e w ly -c re a ted S u p re m e C o u rt o f th e V irg in Isl an d s. W e th ere fo re t ak e this o cc asio n to d ef ine o u r st an d ard o f re v ie w in s u c h c a s e s . C o n g re ss a m e n d e d th e V irg in Isla n d s R e v is e d O rg a n ic A c t i n 1 9 8 4 , e s t a b l i s h i n g “ t h e f r a me wor k f

o r a d u a l s y s t em of l ocal and feder al j udi ci al r evi ew i n t he V i r gi n I s l ands

. ” P a rr o tt v. G ov’ tof

V i r gi n I s l ands , 2 3 0 F

. 3 d 6 1 5 , 6 1 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ). 6Fa rr e lly , 9 9 4 F .2 d 1 0 2 7 , 1 0 3 5 n .6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). 11 T h is a m e n d m e n t v e ste d “ [ t]h e ju d icia l p o w e r o f th e V irg in I s l ands ” i n a “‘ D i s t r i ctC our tof t he V i r gi n I s l ands ’ es t abl i s hed b yC o n g re ss , an d in su c h a p p e llate c o u rt a n d lo w e r lo c a l co u rts a s m a yh a v e b e e n o r m a y h e re a f te r b e e s ta b lis h e d b ylo c a l la w .” 48 U

. S. C

. § 1611( a)

. I n P a rr o tt , w e rec o g n iz ed thatt he 1984 amendm ent s gr ant ed the V i r gi n I s l ands L egi s l atur e the pow er “t o di ves tt he D i s t r i ctC our tof or i gi nal j ur i sdi ct i on forl ocal m a tters b yv e st in g th a t ju risd ictio n in ter rito ria l co u rts es t abl i s hed byl ocal l aw . ” P a rr o tt , 230 F. 3d at619 ( ci t i ng 48 U .S .C . § 1 6 1 1 (b )); s e e al s o Edw ards v
. H O VEN SA, LLC , 497 F .3 d 3 5 5 , 3 5 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T he V i r gi n I s l ands l egi s l atur e s ubs eq u ent l yenac t ed a statu te, ef

fe cti v e O ctob er 1 , 1 9 9 1 , g ra n tin g the S u p erior C o u rt o f th e V irg in Isla n d s (k n o w n a t th e tim e a s the T e rrito ria l C o u rt) o rig in a l ju risd ictio n o v e r lo c a l civ il ac tio n s. V .I. C o d e A n n . ti t. 4, § 76( a)

. T hi s pr ovi s i on, i n combi nat i on w i t h § 1613 of the R evi s ed O r gani c A ct , s erved t o “ef fec t i vel yr epea l anygr antof c o n c u rr e n t ju ri s d ic tio n to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt o v e r l o c a l a c tio n s .” P ar r ot , 230 F. 3d at620 ( ci t i ng B r ow , 9 9 4 F .2 d a t 1 0 3 5 -3 6 ); s ee a l s o Edwar ds , 497 F. 3d at358- 59. U ndert he t erm s of the R evi s ed O r gani c A ctof 1984, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr et ai ned ju risd ictio n o v e r a p p e a ls f ro m th e lo c a l V irg in Isla n d s c o u rts p e n d i n g t h e e s t a b l i s h me n to f a l o c a l a p p e l l a t e c o u r t

. 4 8 U. S

. C. § 1 6 1 3 a . T h e se a p p e a ls w e re c o n sid e re d b ya n A p p e llate D ivisi o n o f th e D istri ct C o u rt

. I d. I n tur n, w e pos s es s ed ju risd ictio n o v e r a p p e a ls f ro m f in a l d e c isio n s o f

th e V irg in I s l ands D i s t r i ctC our t “on appea l fr om t he court s es t abl i s hed by l ocal l aw . ” I

d. § 1 6 1 3 a (c ). O n O c to b e r 29 , 2 0 0 4 , V irg in Isla n d s G o v e rn o r T u rn b u ll appr oved A ct N o. 6687, w hi ch es t abl i s hed a Supr eme C our tof th e V ir g in Is la n d s . See Russ el lv. D eJongh , 491 F. 3d 130, 132 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ; 2004 V

. I

. Ses s . L aw s 179, A ct N o. 6687 ( B

. N o. 25- 213) ( codi fi ed as am ended i n s catt er ed sec t i ons of V

. I

. C ode A nn. t i t

. 4)

. T he Supr eme C our tof the V i r gi n I slan ds w as es t abl i s hed “a s t he hi g h est cour tof the V i r gi n I s l ands ” and g ran ted “ the s u p rem e jud ici al p o w e r o f th e T errit o ry . ” V

. I. C ode A nn. t i t

. 4, § 21. H ow ever , undert he t erm s of the R evi s ed12 O r gani c A ct , fort he fi r s tfi ft een y ear s aft ert he es t abl i s hm entof th e V irg in Isla n d s S u p re m e C o u rt, w e “ sh a ll h a v e ju risd ictio n to revi ew byw ri tof c e rti orar i al l fi nal deci si on s of t he h i gh est c o u rt o f th e V ir g in Is la n d s f

ro m w h ic h a d e c is io n c o u ld b e h a d .” 4 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 1 3 . S e c tio n 1 6 1 3 a lso r e q u ir e s o u r C o u rt to s u b mi tr e p o r t s t o Co n g r e s s r e g a r d i n g wh e t h e rt h e S u p r e me C our tof the V i r gi n Isl ands has “deve l oped s uffi ci ent i n s t i tu t i o n a l t r a d i t i o n s t o j u s t i f yd i r e c tr e v i e w b yt h e S u p r e me C our tof the U ni t ed St at es fr om al l s uch fi nal deci s i ons . ” I d. I ti s i n l i ghtof thi s hi s t or i c and s t atut or ybackdro p t hat w e m u st co n side r the na ture of o u r rev iew o f th e S u p rem e C o u rt of the V i r gi n I s l ands ’ deci s i ons . A t t he out s et , w e i dent i fyt hr ee pos s i bl e s t andar ds of r evi ew t h at w e mi ghtappl yt o a dec i s i on of t he V i r gi n I s l ands Supr eme C our t

. Fi r s t , w e mi ghtdefi ne our r ol e as t hatof a “ s uper - Supr eme C our t , ” w i t h pow er s of r evi ew equi val ent to thatof a s t at e Supr eme C our tr evi ew i ng t he deci s i on of an i nt er m edi arys t at e appe l l at e cou rt

. Second, our r ol e mi ghtbe fr amed as equi val entt o t hatof th e U ni t ed St at es S u p r e me Co u r twh e n i tr e v i e ws d e c i s i on s o f a s t a t e S u p r e me C o u rt

. See, e. g. , O reg o n v. G uz ek , 546 U

. S. 517, 521 ( 2006) ( hol di ng t hatSupr eme C our t“pos s es s [es ] j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew sta te- c o u rt d e ter m in a tio n s th a t re stup o n f e d e ra l law ” ); R ich

field O i lC or p. v. S tat e Bd. of

E qual iz at i on , 329 U

. S. 69, 84 ( 1946) ( decl ar i ng t h att he C al i forni a Supr eme C our t ’ s cons t ruct i on of stat e law is bind ing u p o n the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt ). T hi r d , o u r r e v i e w mi g h t d e ma n d s u b s t a n t i a l d e f e r e n c e on m at t er s of l ocal l aw . U ndert hi s t hi r d pot ent i al s t andar d, w hi ch t he N i nt h C i r cui tembra ced i n r evi ew i ng deci s i ons byt he S u p rem e C o u rto f G u am , “w e m ayrev erse the S u p rem e C o u rt o n ly if it c o m m i t s m a n if

e s t e rr o r o r i s in e s c a p a b ly w ro n g .” H aeus er v. D ep’ tof

Law , 3 6 8 F

. 3 d 1 0 9 1 , 1 0 9 3 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). U p o n c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e p u rp o se o f C o n g re ss ’ g ra n t to u s o f c e r t i o r a r i j u r i s d i c t i on o v e rt h e Vi r g i n I s l a n d s S u p r e me C our t , as w el l as t he tr eatm entof s i m i l ars t atute s byt he S u p rem e C o u rtan d o th e r c ir cu itco u rt s, w e h o ld tha t th is th ir d opt i on – s ubs t ant i al defe r ence – i s t he pr opers t andar d forour revi ew of d eci si on s byt he S up rem e C ou rtof the V i rgi n Isl and s. I ti s , s ubj ectt o ourr evi ew form ani fes terr or, the r ol e of the V i r gi n I s l ands Supr em e C o u r tt o s ayw hatt he l aw of the t err i t or yi s . W e w i l l r ever s e a deci s i on of the Supr eme C our tof13 th e V irg in Isla n d s tha t is ba se d u p o n ter rito ria l law o n lyif it i s in e s c a p a b ly w ro n g . T he s t andar d w e adoptt odayhas pr evi ous l ybeen ur ged upon t hi s C our ti n r el at i on t o ou r re v iew of dec i s i ons byt he A pp el l at e D i vis i on of th e D istri ctC ou rtof the V i rgi n Isl and s, w h ich p rev iou slyh ea rd a p p ea ls from the T errit o ri al C o u rt

. In BA P ro p e rtie s v . G o v e rn m e n t o f th e U n ite d S ta tes V

irg in I s l ands , 29 9 F

. 3d 20 7 ( 3d C i r. 20 02 ), w e rej ect ed the “m anifest err or ” s t andar d and the pr opos i t i on t hat t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on s h o u l d be t r e a t e d “ a s i f i twe r e a l o c a l a p p e l l a t e o rs u p r e me cour t

. ” Id

. a t 2 1 1 -1 2 ; s ee al s o Sal udes v. R am os , 744 F. 2d 992, 993- 94 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( r ej ect i ng defe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew forA ppel l at e D i vi s i on deci s i on)

. I n rea chi ng t hi s concl us i on, w e e m p h a siz e d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt o f th e V irg in Isla n d s “ is e s s e n tia lly a f

e d e ra l c re a tu re , a n d n o t a n in s u la r a p p e lla te c o u rt .” BA P r oper t i es , 2 9 9 F .3 d a t 2 1 2

. W e al s o i ndi cat ed i n BA P r opert i es th a t th e V irg in Isla n d s S u p re m e C o u rt, o n c e it w a s e sta b lish e d b yth e V irg in I s l ands L egi s l ature , w oul d pos s es s an author i t at i ve voi ce on m a tte rs o f V i rg in Is la n d s la w . Id

. (re c o g n izin g th a t V irg in Isl an d s S u p rem e C o u rt“w o u ld es s e n tiall yh av e the fin al w o rd o n t h e i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f l o c a l V i r g i n I s l a n d s l a w ” )

. We r ei n f o r c e d t h i s p o s i t i o n i n a s u b s e q u e n t c a s e d e c i d e d a f t e r t he e s t abl i s hm entof the V i r gi n I s l ands Supr eme C our t

. I n E dw a rds , i n w h ich w e r evi ew ed a de ci s i on of the D i s t r i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands t hat r el i ed on V i r gi n I s l ands l aw , w e decl ar ed that “[g] oi ng forw ar d, now t hat t he V i r gi n I s l ands has es t abl i s hed an i ns ul arappel l at e courtand w i l l begi n devel opi ng i ndi genous j ur i s prudence , t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w hen exe r ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on o v e r ca se s re q u irin g th e a p p lica tio n o f V irg in Isla n d s la w , w ill b e re q u ire d to p re d ict h o w th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f th e V irg in I s l ands w oul d d ec ide an i s s ue of t err i t or i al l aw . ” 497 F. 3d at 362 n. 3. T hes e pr i ordeci s i ons do not , how ever , co m p el t he concl us i on t hatt he V i r gi n I s l ands Supr eme C our t , dur i ng t he p e rio d in w h ic h w e p o ss e ss c e rtio ra ri ju risd ictio n , is n o t at a ll s ubj ectt o ourr evi ew on m at t er s of l ocal l aw . I ns t ead, w e fi nd t hata hi ghl ydefe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew i s pr operi n l i ghtof S u p rem e C o u rtp rec ed en t and the n ature o f o u r ow n statu tory g ra n t o f c e rt io ra ri ju ri s d ic tio n .Sect i on 128 of the Judi ci al C ode, as amended i n 1925, 7 gr ant ed the N i nt h C i r cui t j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew deci s i ons of the Supr eme C our tof H aw ai i

. I tpr ovi ded:
T h e c irc u it co u rts o f

a p p e a l sh a ll h a v e a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on to revi ew byappea l orw r i tof err or fi nal deci s i ons . . . . I n t he Supr eme C our t s of the T e rrito ryo f H a w a ii a n d o f P o rto R ico , in a ll civ il cas es , ci vi l orcr i m i nal , w her ei n t he C ons t i tut i on o r a stat ut e ort r eatyof the U ni t ed St at es orany a u th o ritye x e rc ise d th e re u n d e r is in v o lv e d ; in a ll o t h e rc i v i l c a s e s w h e r e i n t h e v a l u e i n c o n t r o v e r s y, excl us i ve of i nt er es tand cos t s , exce eds $5, 000, and i n all hab eas corpus proceed i ng s. 6 8 C o n g . C h . 2 2 9 , 4 3 S ta t. 9 3 6 , 9 3 6 (F e b . 1 3 , 1 9 2 5 ). 14 In W ai al ua A gr i cul t ur alC o. v. C hr is t i an , 3 0 5 U. S. 91 ( 1938) , t he Supr eme C our tanal y zed, i n t he cont extof thent err i t or i al H aw ai i, the pr opers t andar d of r evi ew fora fe der al cour tof appe al s w hen cons i der i ng a t err i t or i al cour t ’ s deci s i on r eg a r d i n g l o c a l s u b s t a n t i v e l a w. Th e Su p r e me Cou r tg r ant ed ce rt iorari an d cro ss-ce rt iorari t o rev iew th e N inth C ir cu it ’s r ever s al of concl us i ons of l aw r eac hed byt he Supr eme C our tof H a w a ii. Id

. at 9 3 -94

. T h e statute g o v ern ing the N inth C ir cu it ’s r el at i ons hi p t o t he Supr eme Court of H aw ai i att he t i m e w as not i dent i cal t o t he pr ovi s i on governi ng our r el at i ons hi p to the V i r gi n I s l ands Supr eme C our t

. N onethel es s , w e fi nd t he 7 p ri n ciples a n d p o li cy co n side rati o n s u n d erp inn ing the s tand ard of r evi ew ar t i cul at ed byt he Supr eme C our ti n W ai al ua A g ric u ltu ra l rel evan tt o o ur anal y si s. T he C our ti n W

a ia lu a A g ric u ltu ra l decl ar ed that“the arg u m en ts of

p o li cyin f

av o r of h av ing the s ta te c o u rt s d ec lare t he l aw of t he st at e ar e appl i cabl e t o t he ques t i on of w hetheror n o t terr ito ria l co u rts sh o u ld d e c lar e th e law o f th e ter rito rie s w ith th e le a s t p o s s ib le in te rf e re n c e . I

tis tr ue th a t u n derthe appeal s t at ut e th e l ow ercour thad com pl et e pow ert o r eve rs e any r ul i ng of the t er r i t or i alcour ton l aw orf act b u t we are of

the opi ni on thatthis pow ers hould be ex er cis ed onl y i n cas es of m anif ester r or . ” Id

. a t 1 0 9 (f o o tn o te o m itt e d a n d e m p h a sis15 added)

. W hil e the appl i cabl e l aw gr ant ed br oad pow er s t o t he N i n t h Ci r c u i t , t h e Su p r e me Cou r tf o u n d t h a ts u b s t a nt i al defe r ence s houl d be appl i ed t o t hi s r evi ew . T he C our thel d t hat abs enta “c l eardepartur e fr om o rdinaryl egal pr i nci pl es , t he pr efe r ence of a fede r al cour t as t o t he corr ectrul e of ge ner al or l ocal l aw s houl d notbe i m pos ed upon H aw ai i

. ” Id

. I n D e C astro v. B oa rd of C om m issi on ers , 322 U

. S. 451 ( 1949) , a ca s e i nvol vi ng t he Fi r s t C i r cui t ’ s r evi ew of a de ci s i on o f th e S u p rem e C o u rt o f P u erto R ico, th e S u p rem e C o u rt ar t i cul at ed a s i m i l ar l y defe r ent i al s t andar d of re vi ew : “t o j us t i fy r e v e r s a l b y t h e f

e d e r a l c o u r t s o f

a d e c i s i o n o f

a n i n s u l a rs u p r e me cour ti n a mat t erof l ocal co n cern, t he err orm us tbe cl earor m ani fes t ; t he i nt erpr et at i on m us t be i nes capa bl y w r ong. ” Id

. at 4 5 8 (q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ); s ee al s o P hi l i ppi ne SugarEs t at es D ev. C o. v. G ov’ tof P hi l i ppi ne I s l ands , 24 7 U. S. 385, 390 ( 1918) ( “Thi s cour ti s al w ay s di s po sed t o acc eptt he cons t ruct i on w hi ch t he hi ghes t cour tof a t err i t or yorpos s es s i on has pl ace d upon a l ocal s t atut e. B utt hatdi s pos i t i on m aynotbe y i el ded t o, w her e the l ow ercour thas cl ear l yerred. ”) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. I n D e C astro , t he C our t r evea l ed t he pol i cyconce r ns th a t sh a p e d th is s tan d a rd o f r e v ie w , inc lu d in g th e d e sire to “l eave appr opr i at e s cope for t he devel opm ent by t hos e cour t s of a s y s t em of l aw w hi ch di ffe r i ng fr om our ow n i n i t s or i gi ns and pr i nci pl es , w oul d nevert hel es s be s ui t abl e t o l ocal cus t om s and n e e d s .” 3 2 2 U .S . a t 4 5 4 -5 5

. T h e d if f e re n c e s b e tw e e n 1 2 U .S .C . § 1 6 1 3 , w h ich g ra n ts u s c e rtio ra ri ju risd ictio n o v e r th e V irg in Isla n d s S u p re m e C o u rt, a n d 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 5 7 , wh i c h g r a n t s t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C our tcert i or ar i j ur i s di cti o n overt he hi ghes tSt at e court s , l end fur thers uppor tfort hi s di s t i ncts t andar d of r evi ew . Sect i on 1 2 5 7 (a ) p ro v id e s th a t: Fi nal j udgm ent s ordec rees r ender ed byt he h ig h e st c o u rt o f

a S tate in w h ich a d e c isio n c o u ld be had, m ay be r evi ew ed byt he Supr eme C our tby w r i tof ce r t i or ar i w her e the val i di t y of a tr eatyor s t atut e of the U ni t ed St at es i s dr aw n i n ques t i on or w h e re th e v a lid ityo f

a sta tu te o f

a n yS tate is dr aw n i n ques t i on on t he gr ound of i t s bei ng r epugnantt o t he C ons t i tut i on, t r eat i es , or l aw s ofL ocal A ppel l at e R ul e 112. 1 out l i nes t he “c har act erof 8 re a so n s” th a t g u id e o u r d e c isio n o f w h e th e r o r n o t to g ra n t a w rit o f c e r t i o r a r i

. Th e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n c l u d e t h a t“ [ t ] h e S u p r e me C our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands has deci ded an i m por t antques t i on of 16 th e U n ited S tate s, o r w h e re a n ytit le, rig h t, pr i vi l ege, ori m m uni t yi s s peci al l ys etup or cl ai m ed un d er t he C ons t i tut i on ort he tr eat i es or sta tu tes o f

, o r a n yc o m m iss io n h e ld o r a u th o rity exerci sed un der, t he U nit ed S t at es. U nder § 1 2 5 7 , t h e Su p r e me Cou r t ma y r e v i e w a d e c i s i o n of a h igh est stat e c o u rtw h en the U n it ed S tat es C o n sti tuti o n o r a f e d e ra l law is im p lica ted . T h e C o u rt d e c lin e s to re v iew sta te c o u rt d e c isio n s th a t re lyu p o n a n “ a d e q u a te a n d in d e p e n d e n t” s ta te -l a w g ro u n d

. Mi chi gan v. Long , 46 3 U

. S. 1032, 1041 ( 1 9 8 3 ). O urs t atut or ygr antof author i t ypl ace s no s i m i l ar l i m i t at i on upon ourj ur i s di ct i on byw r i tof ce r t i or ar i

. I ts t at es t hat , fort he fi r s tfi ft een y ea rs of t he Supr eme C our tof the V irg in Isla n d ’s e x iste n c e , th is C o u rt “ sh a ll h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew b yw rit o f

c e rtio ra ri a ll fi nal deci si on s of t he h i gh est c o u rt o f th e V ir g in Is la n d s f ro m w h ic h a d e c is io n c o u ld b e h a d .” 48 U

. S. C

. § 1613 ( emphasi s added)

. O ur r evi ew i s notl i m i t ed t o cas es t hati m pl i cat e the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on orfede r al la w . See EI

E G uam C or

p. v. Supr em e C our tof

G uam , 191 F. 3d 1 1 2 3 , 1 1 2 5 (9 th C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ) (d e c lar in g th a t N in th C irc u it, in rev iew ing d ec isi o n s b ythe S u p rem e C o u rto f G u a m u n d er a sta tu te v irtu a llyid e n tica l to 4 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 1 3 , “h a s a u th o rityto rev iew n o t on lyfe d era l issue s, b u t also all issue s o f lo ca l l aw ”). A cc o rdin g ly , w h il e the V ir g in Isl an d s S u p rem e C o u rt “es s ent i al l y[has ] t he fi nal w or d on t he i nt erpr et at i on of l ocal V i r gi n I s l ands l aw , ” BA P r oper t i es , I nc. , 2 9 9 F .3 d a t 2 1 2 , it r e ma i n s s u b

j e c tt o t h e d e f

e r e n t i a l s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w we e s t a b l i s h t o d a y . S u c h a s t a n d a r d , wh i c h a l s o p r o v i d e s t h a twe w i l l not be depr i ved of j ur i s di ct i on i n cas es in w h ich t he deci s i on r el i es upon “ade quat e and i ndepende nt ” t err i t or i al

- l aw gr ounds , bes t ens ur es t hat t hi s C our tcan pe r for m t he r ol e gi ven t o u s b yCon g r e s s , t o n u r tu r e t h e d e v e l o p me n to f “ s u f f i c i e nt i n s t i tu t i o n a l t r a d i t i o n s t o j u s t i f yd i r e c tr e v i e w b yt h e S u p r e me C our tof the U ni t ed St at es . ” 48 U

. S. C

. § 1613. 8fede r al o r terr i t or i al l aw t hathas notbeen, buts houl d be, d e c id e d b yth is c o u rt.” L o c a l A p p e llate R u le 1 1 2 .1 (a )(3 ). T h is rul e acc or ds w i t h our hol di ng t hat , al t hough w e pays ubs t ant i al defe r ence t o t he V i r gi n I s l ands S u p r eme C our t ’ s deci s i on on m at t ers of terri t ori al l aw , w e ret ai n au t ho ri t yt o review t ho se d ec isi o n fo r m an ifest error. T h e c u rre n t sta tu te p ro v id e s th a t: 9
T he r el at i ons betw een the court s es t abl i sh ed by t he C ons t i tut i on orl aw s of the U ni t ed St at es and t he l ocal court s of G uam w i t h respectt o ap peals , c e rtio ra ri, rem o v a l o f

c a u se s, th e iss u a n c e o f

w rits of habe as co rpus , and otherm at t er s or pr ocee di ngs s hal l be governed byt he l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es per t ai ni ng t o t he r el at i ons betw een t he court s of the U nit ed St at es , i ncl udi ng t he Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed Stat es , and the cour t s of t he s ever al St at es i n s uch m at ters and proceed i ng s. 48 U

. S. C

. § 1424- 2. A 2004 amendm entr emoved the l anguage p rov iding forcert i or ar i r evi ew byt he N i nt h C i r cui t

. T he om i t t ed por t i on had r ead:
P r ovi ded , T hatfort he fi r s t fi ft een y ear s fol l ow i ng the es t abl ishm en t of

the a p p ell ate c o u rtau tho ri zed by s ect i on 1424- 1( a) of t hi s t i t l e, t he U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s for t he N i nt h C i r cui ts hal l have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew byw r i tof ce r t i or ar i al l fi nal deci s i ons of the h igh estcour tof G uam from w hi ch a de ci s i on coul d be had. T he J udi ci al 17 T he s t andar d of r evi ew w e embr ace t odayal s o acc or ds w i t h t hat appl i ed byt he N i nt h C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s dur i ng t he re cent per i od i n w hi ch i t exer ci s ed cer t i or ar i r evi ew overt he S u p r e me Co u r t o f Gu a m. T h e s t a tu t e p r o v i d i n g f o rt h i s r e v i e w, forthe fi r s tfi ft een y ear s fol l ow i ng es t abl i s hm entof the S u p re m e C o u rt o f G u a m , w a s n e a rly id e n tica l to th e s ta tu te g r a n t i n g u s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w d e c i s i o n s b yt h e S u p r e me C ou rtof the V i rgi n Isl and s. See 48 U

. S. C

. § 1 4 2 4- 9C o u n c il o f th e N in th C irc u it sh a ll su b m it rep o rts t o t h e C o m m i t t ee on Ener gyand N atur al R es our ces of the Senat e an d the C om m i t t ee on N at ur al R es our ces of th e H o u se of R epr es ent at i ves ati nt erval s of fi ve y ear s f o llo w in g th e e sta b lish m e n t o f su c h a p p e llate co u r tas t o w hetheri thas devel oped s uffi ci ent i ns t i tut i onal t r adi t i ons to jus t i fydi r ectr evi ew by th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f th e U n ited S tate s f ro m a ll s uch fi nal deci s i ons . T he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he N inth C i r cui ts hal l have juri sd ict ion to pro m u lgate rules nec essa ry to ca rry outt he pr ovi s i ons of thi s s ubs ect i on.
P u b . L . N o . 1 0 8 -3 7 8 , § 2

. 18 2 ( 2000)

. I n exer ci s i ng i t s di s cr et i onaryr evi ew under§ 1424- 2, t he N i nt h C i r cui ts ought to “b al ance t he t empora r ypow erof over s i ghtt hat C ongr es s has gi ven us w i t h C ongr es s ’ s cl ear i nt entt o a l l o w G u a m t o d e v e l o p i t s o wn, i n d e p e n d e nt i ns t i tut i ons . ” G ut i er r ezv. P angel i nan , 2 7 6 F .3 d 5 3 9 , 5 4 6 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h e N in th Ci r c u i tt h e r e f

o r e r e v i e we d d e c i s i o n s o f t he Gu a m S u p r e me C our tt hati nvol ved l ocal l aw – w hetheri nt erpr et i ng stat u te s en ac ted b ythe G u a m L eg isl ature o r de v elop ing G u am ’s c o m m o n la w

– b ya p p lyin g a “ d e f e re n tia l s ta n d a rd o f

re v ie w .” Id

. Un d e rt h i s s t a n d a r d t h e Ni n t h Ci r c u i two u l d af f i r m a deci s i o n interpre t i ng a G uam st atut e “‘ w her e . . . t he G uam S u p re m e C o u rt a p p e a rs to h a v e c o n stru e d [ th e ] sta tu te r eas onabl yand fa i r l y . ’ ” Id

. ( quot i ng E I E G uam C or

p. , 191 F. 3d a t 1 1 2 7 ); see als o G ua m v. G uerrero , 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 2 1 0 , 1 2 1 3 (9 th C i r . 2002) ( “W e r ecogni ze thaton m at t er s of l o ca l c oncern, a p p e llate c o u rts a p p lya h ig h lyd e f e re n tial sta n d a rd o f

re v iew [ to a d e c is io n o f

a te rr ito ri a l s u p re m e c o u rt ].” ) ( c itin g , in tera lia , De C astro , 3 2 2 U .S . a t 4 5 4 ). In H aeus erv. D epar tm ent

of Law , the N i nth C i rcuit di s cus s ed the cha nge i n i t s s t andar d of r evi ew fordeci s i ons by t he G uam Supr eme Court fr om i t s pr i ors t andar d forr evi ew of t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on of the D i s t r i ctC our tof G uam, w hi ch had hear d appea l s fr om t he t err i t or i al t r i al cour t

. 368 F. 3d at1097-19 98. I tconcl uded thati t s pr i or r at i onal e fornotdefe r r i ng t o t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on no l ongerappl i ed w hen re vi ew i ng t he G uam Supr eme C our t , ci t i ng i t s ow n pr i ordeci s i ons i n G uti errez and EI E G uam C or

p. Id

. a t 1 0 9 8

. Ex a mi n i n g t h e t e r m s of t he s t a tu t e e s t a b l i s h i n g i t s c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w o v e r t h e Gu a m S u p r e me C our t , the cour tr eas oned that“[a ] l t hough C ongr es s di d not expl i ci t l y s t at e t hatgr eat erdefe r ence m us tbe pai d t o t he G uam Supr em e C our t , t he t extof § 1424- 2 as s um es t hatt he G uam S u p r e me Co u r t wi l l h a v e t h e f r e e d o m t o d e v e l o p i t s o wn
‘ t r adi t i ons , ’ w hi ch i n tur n, undoubt edl yent ai ls the cr eat i on of l egal pr ece dentas w el l

. ” I d. at 1099. C ongr es s expr es s ed the sa m e in ten tio n in th e sta tu te g o v e rn in g o u r re v iew o f th e V irg in Is l and s S up rem e C ou rt , w hich requi res us t o reportt o C on gress r egar di ng w hethert he new cour t“has de vel oped s uffi ci ent i n s t i tu t i o n a l t r a d i t i o n s t o j u s t i f yd i r e c tr e v i e w b yt h e S u p r e me C our tof the U ni t ed St at es . ” 48 U

. S. C

. § 1613. T he devel opm en tof s uch tr adi t i ons r equi r es s om e degr ee of i ndepende nce a nd demands thatourover s i ghtbe m arked by c o n s id e ra b le d e f

e re n c e . See H

aeus er , 368 F. 3d at1099 ( “U nl i ke ourr evi ew of t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on, ourr evi ew of the G uam S upr eme C our t r equi r es us t o defe r t o an i ns ul arj udi ci al sy st em ’s exp ert i se i n l ocal m at t ers as w el l as t o h on or C on gress ’ a ss u m p tio n th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt w o u ld h a v e th e f re e d o m to devel op s uffi ci entl egal t r ad it i ons and pr ece dent

. ”)

. A s t he N i nt h C i r cui tcon cl uded, and w e hol d t oday , t he degr ee of d e f e r e n c e we mu s ta f

f o r d t o a t e r r i t o r i a l s u p r e me c o u r ta l l o ws for r eversal on m at t ers of local l aw on l y w hen “cl ear orm anifest err ori s s how n. ” I

d. III . W e now appl y t hi s s t andar d of r evi ew t o t he t hr ee i s s ues u p o n wh i c h we g r a n t e d P i c h a r d o ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rwr i to f

r e v i e w. W e begi n w i t h t he thi r d i s s ue w e i dent if i ed i n t he gr antof rev iew : w h ethe r, u n d e r V

. I. C o d e A n n . ti t. 2 4 , § 7 0 (b), Pi c h a r d o ’ s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i ms ma yo n l yb e c o n s i d e r e d b yt he V i r gi n I s l ands cour t , on a w r i tof r evi ew , i f theyhave f i r s tbeen ra is e d b e f

o re th e D e p a rt m e n t o f

L a b o r. T he Supr eme C our tof th e V ir gi n I s l ands hel d t hatt he Super i orC our t“corr ect l ydecl i ned t o addr es s Pi ch ar do’ s due p roce s s ar gum ent s on a w r i tof r evi ew . ” P i char do , 2 0 0 8 WLP ich a rdo fi led a p e tit io n f o r re h e a rin g , w h ich th e V irg in 10 I s l ands Supr eme C o u rt d eni ed. ( J

. A

. at10- 13 ( O r derdeny i ng P e tit io n f o r R e h e a rin g (A u g . 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 ).) P ich a rd o c o n ten d e d in her p e t i t i o n t h a t a n Oct o b e r 6 , 2 0 0 3 l e t t e r s h e s e n t t o t he C om m issi o n erof Labor , expr es s i ng herdi s cont entw i t h t he A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge’s del ayi n i s s ui ng a dec i s i on i n her cas e, r epr es ent ed an obj ect i on s uffi ci ent t o al l ow forr evi ew of t hi s i s s ue. I n deny i ng r ehea r i ng, t he Supr eme C our tnot ed that th e lette r w a s n o t in c lu d e d in th e Jo in t A p p e n d ix f iled w ith Pi char do’ s appel l at e br i ef norw as i tr efe r ence d i n herbr i ef. ( J

. A. a t1 1

- 1 2

. ) Ev e n a b s e n tt h e s e d e f i c i e n c i e s , t h e Sup r e me C our tdecl ar ed thati tw as notper s uaded thatt he l et t erhad pr oper l yr ai s ed Pi char do’ s obj ect i ons befor e the C om m i s s i oner of Labor

. I tfound the l et t erm er el yexpr es s ed that sh e w as deni ed herr i ght s “undert he V I R ul es and R egul at i ons as pr o mul g a t e d o n M a r c h 1 8 , 1 9 8 1 , ” b u td i d n o ta s s e r tt h a tany c o n s t i tu tio n a l r ig h ts h a d b e e n v io la te d . (I d. at12. ) W e have i ndepende nt l yr evi ew ed the l et t erand ag ree t hati tr ai s es no obj ect i ons t hatcoul d be i nt erpr et ed as an al l egat i on o f a due p ro c e s s v io la tio n u n d e r t h e C o n s titu tio n . ( See I d. a t 1 3 1

. ) We f in d n o b a sis f

o r c o n c lu d in g th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt m a n if e stly 20 6 0 5 4 3 8 6 , at *1

. T h e S u p erior C o u rth ad af firm e d th e D O L ’s d eterm ination that P icha rdo w as n o t w ron g fu ll yterm inated

. It a l s o h e l d t h a t i t c o u l d n o t ru l e o n P i c h a r d o ’ s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m, a s s u c h a c laim w a s b e y o n d th e s c o p e o f th e w rit o f

re v iew it had gr ant ed, w hi ch foc us ed on w hethe rPi c har do w as t erm i nat ed forcaus e. ( J

. A

. at37 [ P ich a rd o v . B e n ja m in , C i v. N o. 85- 2004 ( V. I

. S u p . Ct

. M a r . 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 ) ] )

. Th e Vi r g i n I s l a n d s S u p r e me C our texer ci s ed pl enaryr evi ew overt he S uper i orC our t ’ s rul i ng o n P ic h a rd o ’s d u e p ro c e s s c la im . 2 0 0 8 W L 6 0 5 4 3 8 6 , a t * 2

. A fter rev iew ing the rec o rd b ef o re it , the S u p rem e C o u rt concl ud ed that Pi char do fai l ed t o r ai s e anyobj ect i on t o t he D O L ’ s del ayi n conduct i ng a hear i ng befor e the C om m i s s i oner of Labor , nordi d s he t ake a nyact i on t o i nduce the D O L t o i s s ue a d e c is io n a f

te r th e h e a ri n g o c c u rr e d

. Id

. Si nce V

. I

. C ode A nn. t i t

. 24, § 70( b) onl yper m i t s t he Superi o r C o u r tt o cons i der i s s ues upon w hi ch an obj ect i on has been “ ur ged bef or e the C om m i s s i oner , ” the Supr eme C our tconcl uded thatt he Super i or Co u r tl a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a rP i c h a r d o ’ s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m. 10err ed i n it s det er m i nat i on t hatt he l et t erdi d notcons t i tut e a p ro p e r o b

je c tio n u n d e r V .I. C o d e A n n . tit. 2 4 , § 7 0

. Si nce, pur s uantt o 48 U

. S. C

. § 1613, w e ar e entrus t ed 11 w ith th e ta sk o f

o v e rse e in g th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e V irg in Isla n d s S u p re m e C o u rt’s “ in stitu tio n a l tra d iti o n s,” w e tak e th is o p p o rtu n ityto c o m m e n t o n a se e m in g d isc re p a n c yin V irg in Is l and s j uri spruden ce, w hich the S up rem e C ou rt did not di scuss i n i t s deci s i on. V i r gi n I s l ands cour t s have nott r eat ed the i s s ue of w hether§ 70 appl i es to revi ew of D O L deci s i ons cons i s t ent l y . I n B a chel orv. P i t t

- D es - Moi nes , I nc. , C i v. N o. 262/ 1998, 2003 W L 553266 ( T err . V

. I

. Feb. 3, 2003 ) , t he T er ri tori al C o u rto f th e V ir g in Island s rev iew ed the D O L ’s rul i ng i n a W r ongful D i s char ge A ctcas e pur s uantt o a w r i tof r evi ew underV

. I

. C ode A nn. t i t

. 5, §§ 1421- 1423, w i t houtany ref ere n ce to § 7 0

. H o w ev er, a sep ara te T err ito rial C o u rt d eci s i on, i s s ued pr i ort o B achelor , embra ced the pos i t i on t hat 21 A ccor di ngl y , i tfound thati tneed noteven rea ch t he i s s ue of w h e th e r a d u e p ro c e ss c laim c o u ld b e ra ise d p u rsu a n t to a w rit underV

. I

. C ode A nn. t i t

. 24, § 70. T he Supr eme C o u rta l s o a d d r e s s ed a s epar at e, butr el at ed, i s s ue r ai s ed byPi char do: w hether her pet i t i on for r evi ew of the D O L ’s d e c is io n s h o u ld b e g o v e rn e d b y V .I. C o d e A n n . tit. 5 , § 1422, r ather than V

. I

. C ode A nn. t i t

. 24, § 70. Se cti o n 1 4 22 does notl i m i t r evi ew t o i s s ues for w hi ch an obj ect i on w as r ai s ed b e f o r e t h e e n t i t y wh o s e d e c i s i o n i s u n d e r r e v i e w. Th e S u p r e me C o u rt f o u n d th a t § 1 4 2 2 – w h ich p ro v id e s f o r re v iew “ in a ll cas es whe r e t h e r e i s n o a p p e a l o ro t h e rp l a i n , s p e e d y , a nd a d e q u a te r e m e d y” – is a g e n e ra l re v iew sta tu te a n d “ is o n ly a p p l i c a b l e i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n o t h e rr e me d y . ” 2 0 0 8 WL 6054386, at*2. Si nce § 70 e xp resslypr ovi des forr evi ew of deci s i ons byth e D O L , t he Supr eme C our tfound § 1422 inap pl i cabl e. G i ven the def er ent i al s t andar d t hatw e have d e c lar e d g o v e rn s o u r re v iew o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in th is, a m a tter o f V irg in Isla n d s law , w e f in d n o m a n if

e st e rro r in t he Supr eme Court ’ s t w o deci s i ons , t hat t he w r i t of r evi ew under § 70 i s l i m i t ed t o cons i der at i on of i s s ues for w hi ch an obj ect i on w as r ai s ed and t hat§ 1422 cannotbe i nvoked t o s eek r evi ew of deci s i ons byt he D O L , gi ven the exi s t ence of § 70. 11t he Supr eme C our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands has now decl ar ed p ro p e r: th a t ju d icia l re v iew f ro m a d e c isio n o f

th e D O L is o n ly avai l abl e pur s uant t o § 70. I n P eters v

. C h a n n el 8 (W S V I) , C i v. N o. 1111/ 1992, 1994 W L 326548 ( T err . V

. I

. M ay19, 1994) , t he cour tcons i der ed Pet er s ’ s ar gum entt hat it err oneous l yr el i ed upon § 7 0 . In v o k in g th e p rin c ip le th a t a m o re sp e c if ic s tatu te g o v e r n s , r a t h e r t h a n a mo r e g e n e r a l o n e d e a l i n g wi t h t he s a me su b jec t, th e c o u rt d e c lar e d th a t § 7 0 a n d n o t § 1 4 2 1 g o v e rn e d its ju ri s d ic tio n . The s e a l t e r na t i ve mea ns of r a i s i ng he rdu e pr oc ess 12 claim s al s o compel us t o r ej ectPi char do’ s cont ent i on t hatt he 22 M o r e o v e r , a l t h o u g h P i c h a r d o r a i s e d d u e p r o c e s s c l a i ms undert he U ni t ed S tat es C ons t i tut i on, t hi s does notal t erour co n clus ion

. A lth o u g h the V ir g in Island S u p rem e C o u rt ’s deci s i on deni ed Pi char do t he oppor tuni t yt o have h er due pr oces s cl ai m cons i dere d in t hi s m at t er , a w r i tof r evi ew p u rsu a n t to V .I. C o d e A n n . ti t. 24 , § 7 0 w a s n o t th e o n ly avai l abl e ave nue for Pi char do t o vi ndi cat e anydue pr oces s r i ght r el at ed t o t he D O L ’ s del ay . P ic har do coul d have br oughtan act i on foran i nj unct i on ora w r i tof m andamus to compel t he agency to hol d a hea r i ng ori s s ue a de ci s i on. She coul d have fi l ed an a cti o n p ur s uantt o 42 U

. S. C

. § 1983, chal l engi ng t he a lleg e d d e n ial o f

h e r d u e p r o c e ss rig h ts. P ich a rd o a lso c o u ld h av e b rou g h t a claim in th e S u p erior C o u rt , p u rsua n t t o V

. I. C ode A nn. t i t

. 24, § 79, concurr ent l yw i t h heract i on befor e the D O L

. Sect i on 79 pr ovi des t hat “any w r ongful l yd i s char ged e mpl o y e e ma yb r i n g a n a c t i o n f o rc o mpe n s a t o r ya n d p u ni t i ve damages in anycour tof compet entj ur i s di ct i on agai ns tany empl oy erw ho has vi ol at ed the pr ovi s i ons of [the V i r gi n I s l ands W r ongful D i s char ge A ct ]

. ” A ccor di ngl y , w e concl ude thatt he con st i tuti on al natur e of P i chardo ’s cl ai m do es not gi ve u s cause t o a l t e ro u ra n a l y s i s wh e r e , a s h e r e , t h e Vi r g i n I s l a n d S u p r e me C o u rt’s d e te r m in a tio n d id n o t d e n yh e r th e “ o p p o rtu n ityto pr ot e c t ” h e rd u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s a n d o t h e rj u d i c i a l r e me d i es re m a in e d a v a ila b le

. See Bri nker hof f

- Far is Trus t& Sav

. C o. v. Hill , 2 8 1 U .S . 6 7 3 , 6 8 2 (1 9 3 0 ) (“ [ W ]h ile itis f o r th e sta te c o u rts t o det erm i ne t he adj ect i ve as w el l as t he s ubs t ant i ve l aw of the s t at e, t heym us t , i n s o doi ng, acc or d the part ies d ue pr oces s of law

. ”). 12w ri tpu rs uan tt o V

. I. C od e A nn . t i t

. 5, § 1 42 1-23 is app l i ca b le h e re g iv e n th a t § 1 4 2 2 p ro v id e s tha t “[ t]h e w rit o f re v iew sh a ll be al l ow ed i n al l cas es w her e the r e i s no appea l orot herpl ai n, s peedy , and ade quat e r emedy

. ” V

. I

. C ode A nn. t i t

. 5, § 1422. A lth o u g h w e d ef

er to the V ir g in Island s S u p rem e C o u rt ’s h o l d i n g t h a tV. I

. Co d e An n . t i t

. 5 , § 1 4 2 1 d o e s n o ta p p l yt o DOL p r o c e e d i n g s , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t Pi c h a r d o c l a i ms t h a t V. I

. C ode A nn. t i t

. 5, § 1421 m us tbe appl i ed i n or dert o v indi cat e her c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s , w e f in d th is c o n te n tio n u n a v a ilin g . 23 T he fi r s tand s econd i s s ues upon w hi ch w e gr ant ed t he w ri tof ce rt i ora ri c a n easi l ybe d i sposed o f. A s for the fir st iss u e , g iv e n o u r d isc u ss io n a b o v e , w e n e e d n o t r e a c h th e m e rits of Pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m t hats he w as deni ed due pr oces s byvi r tue of the del ay s befor e the D O L

. A s fort he s econd i s s ue, Pi char do fai l ed t o raise a cl ai m r egar di ng t he l ack of a tr ans cr i pti n her br i ef be for e the S upr eme C our t , a poi nt s he concede s i n herbr i ef befor e ourC our t

. ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at 37. ) A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd no bas i s forconcl udi ng t hatt he Supr eme C our tcomm i t t ed any err ori n fai l i ng to addr es s hercl ai m s r el at ed t o t he Super i or C our t ’ s r evi ew of t he D O L ’ s det erm i nat i on i n t he abs ence of a tra n sc rip t. A l t hough t hi s i s s ue w as w ai ved and w e ther efor e w i l l not s peak t o t he mer i t s of Pi char do’ s d u e p roces s cl ai m on t he t r ans cr i pti s s ue, i n ourr ol e of ove r s eei ng t he devel opm entof the V irg in Isla n d s’ “ in stitu tio n a l trad iti o n s” w e w il l ta k e th is oppor tuni t yt o br i efl yemphasi ze the i m por t ance of a tr ans cr i pt i n e n s u r i n g p r o p e r r e v i e w o f a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g . We have r ecogni zed, i n ot hercont ext s , t he i m por t ance of havi ng an adequa t e r ecor d avai l abl e i n orde r t o pr ovi de meani ngful ju d ic ia l re v ie w o f a n a g e n c y a c tio n . S e e Ma rin c a s v . L e w is , 92 F .3 d 1 9 5 , 2 0 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (re v iew o f a sy lu m a p p lica tio n ); s ee a l s o Khe i r e dd i n e v
. Gon z al es , 427 F. 3d 80, 84 ( 1s tC i r . 2005) (descr i bing ho w , i n im m i grat i on proceed ing, “due p rocess d e m a n d s a re a so n a b ly a c c u ra te, re a so n a b lyc o m p lete tra n sc rip t, o r an a d e q u a te su b stitu te, t o a llo w f o r m e a n in g f

u l an d a d e q u a te appel l at e r evi ew ”) ( quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. T he Supr eme C our t , i n McN ar y v. H ai t i an R ef

ugee Cent er, I

nc. , 498 U

. S. 479 ( 1991) , not ed that“the l ack of r ec or di ngs or t r a ns c r i pt s ” of an i mm i gr a t i on pr oc e e di ng l e ftt he I N S’24 admi ni s t r at i ve appe al s uni tw i t h “no compl et e orm eani ngful bas i s upon w hi ch t o r evi ew appl i cat i on det erm i nat i ons . ” Id

. at 4 9 6

. W e find the S up eri or C ou rt ’s op i nion prob l em at ic b e c a u se , in r e v iew in g th e re c o rd f o r su b sta n tial e v id e n c e to s uppor tt he A L J ’ s deci s i on, i t r el i ed i n part on t he st at ement s of w i t nes ses att he hea r i ng, w hi ch i tcoul d notr evi ew abs entt he tr anscri pt. It no t es t hat t he A L J fou nd A gav e had groun d s to t erm i nat e Pi char do, not i ng “[r ] es pondent put for t h s i x w i t nes s es w hos e t es t i m onycover ed t opi cs t hati ncl uded th a tPe t i t i o nerw as l at e 3 or4 t i m es a w eek, di d not pr oper l yfi l l outt i cket s w hi ch w er e gi ven t o t he cook t o pr epar e the food, fai l ed t o fol l ow t he s ta n d a rd s , a n d d id n o t lis te n to m a n a g e r’ s o rd e rs .” (J .A . a t 3 8 .) T her e i s no ci t at i on t o t he s our ce of t hi s s um m ary , buti n t he abs ence of a tr ans cr i pti tcan be as s um ed t hati tcame fr om t he A L J ’ s opi ni on. T hr oughoutt he Super i orC our t ’ s o p i ni on, t he cour tm er el ys t at es t he A L J ’ s fi ndi ngs and conc l us i ons w i t hout compar i ng t hese t o an i ndepende ntas s es s m entof the r ecor d. T h e o n ly ad d it ion al item s in the rec o rd th at t h e S u p erior C o u rt can b e assum ed to hav e revi ew ed , a nd w hich w ere al so pr es ent ed t o t hi s C our t , ar e t he var i ous empl oy ee w r i t e- ups fr om A gave r egar di ng Pi char do, Pi char do’ s r es pons es , a dec i s i on re latin g to h e r U n e m p lo ym e n t In su ra n c e c laim , sta tem e n ts rega r di ng herU nempl oym entI ns ur ance paym ent s , A gave ’s C a s h i e rRul e s , t h e r e s t a u r a n t ’ s St a n d a r d s o f Con d u c ta nd O rie n tatio n C h e c k list, an d a c re d it ca rd re c e ip t o n w h ich n o tip w as l eft

. M anyof t hes e i t ems w er e authent i cat ed and a dm i t t ed t hr ough t he t es t i m onyof w i t nes s es att he hea r i ng, as not ed i n t he A L J ’ s opi ni on. T he A L J ’ s deci s i on s ubs t ant i al l yr el i ed upon the s ta te m e n ts o f th e s e w itn e s s e s . ( See J

. A

. at94- 97. ) T he dec i s i on not ed that“[c ] om pl ai nant b rou ghtfour t h [s i c] no w i t nes s es exce pther s el f and d id notpr ove hert es t i m onyt hatal l of R es pondent ’ s w i t nes s es w er e l y i ng. ” (Id

. a t9 6

. ) A c c o r d i n g l y, t he A L J foun d “suffi ci entevi dence i n t he s w or n t es t i m onyof t he w i tnes s es t o s uppor t R es pondent ’ s deci s i on nott o cont i nue C om plai na n t’s em ploym ent for di sobey i ng reas on able O rder s, notper for m i ng cert ai n t as ks and i nabi l i t yt o w or k w i t h ot her empl oy ees . ” (Id

. at97. ) A bs entt he abi l it y to revi ew t hat test im o n yd ir ec tl y , b yrea d ing the tr an script, the S u p erior C o u rt l acke d a s uffi ci ent r ecor d t o pr oper l yr evi ew t he A L J ’ s deci s i on.25 W e emphas i ze thes e def i ci enci es i n or der t o r ai s e the att ent i on of the V i r gi n I s l ands j udi ci aryt o t he i m por t ance of a tr ans cr i pt to f ac il it ate a p rop er rev iew o f a n a d m in istrati v e a g en cy ’s d e c is io n . I V. F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m th e S u p r e me C o u rt o f th e V ir g in Is la n d s ’ d e c is io n .