Whether the Tenth Circuit applied the wrong standard of review under the Administrative Procedure Act

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : With Administrative Procedure Act (APA) . jurisdiction, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals : affirmed U.S. Department of Labor, Administrative Review Board (ARB) affirmation of Office of : Administrative Law Judges dismissal at summary : decision of the Petitioner's "Safe Drinking Water . Act" (SDWA) whistleblower claims against the State of Utah. , . Congress prescribes, in U.S. Code, direction to two different Standards of Review, in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), for the Circuit Courts' review of final ARB orders on whistleblower complaints. This includes the 29 CFR § 24.100(a) six environmental statutes plus ERA. Employee protections at CWA (33 U.S.C. § 1367(e)), SWDA (42 U.S.C. § 6971(e)), and CERCLA (42 U.S.C. § 9610(b)) ; look to APA 5 U.S. Code § 554, Adjudications. : Employee protections at SDWA (42 U.S.C. § 300); Z 9()(8)(A), TSCA (45 U.S.C. § 2622(¢)(1)), and CAA (42 U.S.C. § 7622(c)(1)) look to APA 5 U.S. Code § 706, Scope of Review. . For the Circuit Courts, APA 5 U.S. Code § 706(2) articulates six standards of review, and de facto seventh standard of review at coda. Historically, the Tenth Circuit and most other Circuit Courts have eviscerated sua sponte Congress's prescribed standards of review at 5 U.S. = ; Code § 706(2) in applying these Circuits’ articulated i . iy Standards of Review. The Circuits’ conflicted holdings are shown. Petitioner's questions follow. 5 U.S. Code . § 706(2) Std. Review Circuits § 706(2)(A) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, D.C., § 706(2)(B) § 706(2)(C) 2 § 706(2)(D) § 706(2)(E) 1, 6, 10 § 706(2)(F) § 706(2) Coda First, in reviewing Onysko's appeals, did the Tenth Circuit apply wrong standard of review— ; § 706(2)(A). i.e., wrongly liberalized § 706(2)(A)—to accord unwarranted deference to ARB interpretation of statute (SDWA) which it does not administer, unwarranted deference to ARB interpretation of statute (APA) it does not solely administer, but does administer with other agencies, and unwarranted deference to ARB interpretation of Supreme Court decisions from well-settled summary judgment case law? ii ig . Second, in reviewing Onysko's appeals, did the Tenth Circuit apply wrong standard of review, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(E), and did the Tenth Circuit make impossible finding there of supporting substantial evidence in phantom record of a nonexistent agency hearing provided by statute? Third, in reviewing Onysko's appeals, did the Tenth Circuit apply wrong standard of review, in omitting, from its applied Standard of Review, § 706(2)(B), § 706(2)(C), § 706(2)(D), § 706(2)(F), and § 706(2) coda? Fourth, should the Court grant certiorari to resolve the conflicts and confusion in the Circuit Courts' holdings, none of which pay homage to the plain language of the seven standards of review at § 706(2)(A)-(F), and § 706(2) coda, for the Circuit Courts! review of final orders of the ARB and other agencies, as Congress intended ? iii a COMPLETE LISTING OF