UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MANLEY BARTON, No. 23-15902

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv- 08022-SPL v. OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI OPINION INDIAN RELOCATION, an administrative agency of the United States,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 14, 2024 Phoenix, Arizona Filed January 8, 2025 Before: Roopali H. Desai and Ana de Alba, Circuit Judges, and Edward M. Chen, * District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Desai * The Honorable Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 2 BARTON V. OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION

SUMMARY **

Tribal Relocation Benefits

The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, which affirmed a decision of the Independent Hearing Officer (“IHO”) denying Manley Barton’s application for relocation benefits under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. Manley applied for relocation benefits based on his residence at his grandparents’ Hopi Partitioned Lands (“HPL”) homesite. To be eligible for benefits, an applicant must show that he (1) was a resident of the land partitioned to the tribe of which he was not a member on December 22, 1974; and (2) was head of household as of the date he moved away from the land partitioned to the tribe of which he was not a member. The panel held that because Manley was away from the HPL homesite after 1984 for his education and then his employment, he qualified for the “temporarily away” exception. Therefore, to determine Manley’s legal residence, the IHO needed to examine Manley’s intent to reside on the HPL homesite and manifestations of his intent in accordance with the proper standard. But instead, the IHO found one fact dispositive of Manley’s residence: his grandparents’ relocation from the HPL homesite. This reasoning failed to comport with the residency standard. The panel concluded that the IHO’s decision was ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. BARTON V. OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION 3

arbitrary and capricious, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

COUNSEL Lee Phillips (argued), Law Office of Lee Phillips PC, Flagstaff, Arizona, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Ezekiel Peterson (argued), John E. Arbab, and William B. Lazarus, Attorneys; Todd Kim, Assistant Attorney General; United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division, Appellate Section, Washington, D.C.; Katherine R. Branch and William C. Staes, Assistant United States Attorneys; United States Department of Justice, Office of the United States Attorney, Phoenix, Arizona; Larry Ruzow, Attorney, Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, Flagstaff, Arizona; for Defendant-Appellee. 4 BARTON V. OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION

OPINION DESAI, Circuit Judge:

Manley Barton, a registered member of the Navajo tribe, applied for benefits from the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (“ONHIR”). His application was based on his relocation within the Joint Use Area (“JUA”), a portion of reservation land in northeastern Arizona, following its partition between the Navajo and Hopi tribes. ONHIR denied Manley’s initial application, and on appeal, the Independent Hearing Officer (“IHO”) concluded that Manley was ineligible for benefits. On appeal, Manley argues that (1) substantial