Opinion ID: 581194
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jones-Moses Assignment

Text: 20 As noted by the district court, the IBLA has required the claimant in past disputes to establish the identities of the soldier/entryman and subsequent assignors through affidavits of two witnesses having personal knowledge of the facts. See William E. Moses, 31 L.D. 320, 321 (1902). The IBLA required the trustees to comply with this burden or provide other facts ... tending to establish such identity. The district court acknowledged that it was burdensome to prove an event that occurred over a hundred years ago, but concluded this fact did not diminish the quantum of proof necessary. 21 The only documents before the IBLA regarding the assignment of the claim from Jones to Moses were either unsigned documents or documents containing the typed names of the individuals instead of signatures. Although the trustees allege the government wrongly concealed the original assignment documents, no credible evidence has been presented beyond mere inferences to convince us the government actually possessed these documents and the government intentionally withheld them. 22 Because the IBLA is entrusted with implementing congressional policies, the quantum of proof required to establish an assignment falls within the agency's discretion. See United States v. Alpine Land and Reservoir Co., 887 F.2d 207, 212 (9th Cir.1989) (in the absence of congressional directives, [the Department of the Interior] can regulate distribution, acquisition, and vested water rights), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 60 (1990); Brennan v. Udall, 379 F.2d 803, 806 (10th Cir.) (Department of the Interior reasonably interpreted a statute where the same interpretation had consistently been applied for fifty years), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 975 (1967). The IBLA's imposition of an exacting standard of proof to establish the Jones to Moses assignment was therefore proper. Based on the evidence before the IBLA and the district court, we conclude the trustees have not established that the IBLA's decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law.