Opinion ID: 1505912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petition for Review as to DLII's Revocation

Text: Because petitioner did not initially invoke the BAR's appellate jurisdiction over DLII's revocation of the permit, this court must dismiss, for lack of our own jurisdiction, that part of his petition for review challenging DLII's revocation of the permit. More specifically, in declining to appeal DLII's revocation to the BAR, petitioner failed to create a contested case as to that issue, which means a proceeding before the Mayor or any agency in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by any law (other than this subchapter), or by constitutional right, to be determined after a hearing before the Mayor or before an agency. . . . D.C.Code § 1-1502(8) (1981) (emphasis added); see id., § 1-1509. The phrase after a hearing means after a trial-type hearing where such is implicitly required by either the organic act or constitutional right. Chevy Chase Citizens Ass'n v. District of Columbia Council, 327 A.2d 310, 314 (D.C.1974) (en banc). The DCAPA, § 1-1510 (1981), appropriately limits this court's review to cases in which there has been an evidentiary hearing, meeting the contested case requirements, or at least an effort to obtain such a hearing which the agency erroneously denied. See Capitol Hill Restoration Society v. Zoning Commission, 287 A.2d 101, 104-06 (D.C.1972); Bay River, Inc. v. Environmental Quality Commission, 26 Or.App. 717, 721, 554 P.2d 620, 622-23 (1976). Petitioner had no contested case hearing before DLII, nor was one available. In questioning DLII's action, however, he had a right to such a hearing before the BAR. He received notice of this right. He declined to invoke it. Therefore, absent BAR review, DLII's revocation became final agency action, and this court lacks jurisdiction to review it for lack of a contested case. Id.