Opinion ID: 738027
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: BIA Regulation Violations

Text: 28 Stuart argues the BIA violated her due process rights by failing to follow its own regulations during its cancellation of her contract. According to Stuart, the BIA violated the regulations in three ways: (a) the BIA Superintendent issued a letter terminating her contract before the regulations permitted such action; (b) the BIA Area Director ruled on her appeal before receiving her statement of reasons; and (c) the BIA did not send her copies of documents she requested. 29 The BIA Superintendent erroneously stated in his May 27, 1993 decision notifying Stuart of her default that the notice letter itself was subject to appeal. Based on this statement, Stuart appealed the notification letter. As soon as the Superintendent recognized his error, he sent Stuart a correction letter. The correction letter corrected the error. The notice letter was not itself appealable, but the decision to terminate the contract was. Stuart appealed from that decision. 30 Stuart contends the BIA Area Director incorrectly ruled on her appeal before receiving her statement of reasons. Stuart filed her notice of appeal from the cancellation decision on July 27, 1993. 25 C.F.R. § 2.10(c) provides that, if the appellant does not file a statement of reasons for the appeal with her notice of appeal, she must file it separately within 30 days after she filed her notice of appeal. By August 26, 1993, Stuart had not filed her statement of reasons. The Area Director did not violate BIA regulations in denying her appeal. 31 Stuart finally contends the BIA did not render assistance to her as required by 25 C.F.R. § 2.9(b) because it did not send her copies of certain documents. 3 The record indicates, however, that the BIA sent Stuart the materials she requested. 32 We conclude the BIA did not violate its regulations.