What is the appropriate standard of review when an agency administrative law judge abuses their discretion, is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise unreasonable in deference to application of an agency process statute and congressional acts, deviates from the clear intent of the statute to dismiss a relevant cause of action in violation of employee protection rights?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. What is the appropriate standard of review when an agency administrative law judge abuses their discretion, is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise unreasonable in deference to application of an agency process statute and congressional acts, deviates from the clear intent of the statute to dismiss a relevant cause of action in violation of employee protection rights? 2. Was the appropriate standard of review reasonable when agency administrative law judge in absentia on motion in limine unreasonably weighed testimony as substantial evidence despite admitting spoliation of other evidence saddled petitioner with a much higher and arbitrary burden than the statute permits? 3. What is an appropriate standard of review when an agency administrative review board and the appellate court ignore in absentia of the administrative law judge and do not require court describe how evidence was fairly balanced as in other de novo appellate review? 4. What is an appropriate standard of review for agency solicitor briefs submitted to appellate courts knowing the factual contentions were void of evidentiary support or specific identification of evidence toward claims and defenses the solicitor cited to compel the court denial of a petition for review of administrative agency conduct? 5. What is an appropriate standard of review for petitioner to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued blacklisting has for statutes do not require complainants to produce a proverbial “smoking gun” but merely inferred evidence of the results resembling an occurrence of blacklisting?