Memorandum Opinion and Order - US District Court - Northern ...

evidence in the AR permitted the agency to make the decision it did, and “summary judgment isan appropriate mechanism for deciding the legal question of whether an agency could reasonablyhave found the facts as it did.” Id. (quoting Sierra Club v. Dombeck, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1064(D. Ariz. 2001)). “Judicial review has the function of determining whether the administrativeaction is consistent with the law–that and no more.” Girling Health Care, Inc. v. Shalala, 85F.3d 211, 215 (5th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).The standard for summary judgment on judicial review of agency decisions is notwhether there is a genuine issue of material fact but “whether the agency action was arbitrary,capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, or unsupported by substantialevidence on the record taken as a whole.” Envt. Now! v. Espy, 877 F. Supp. 1397, 1421 (E.D.Cal. 1994) (citing Good Samaritan Hosp., Corvallis v. Matthews, 609 F.2d 949, 951 (9th Cir.1979)). Thus, the issue is not whether material facts are disputed but whether the agencyproperly dealt with the facts. Lodge Tower Condo. Ass’n v. Lodge Props., Inc., 880 F. Supp.1370, 1376-77 (D. Colo. 1995). The “court must find that the evidence before the agencyprovided a rational and ample basis for its decision.” Id. at 1377 (quoting Northwest MotorcycleAss’n v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994)).The narrow scope of the court’s review is to determine whether the agency decision “wasbased on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error ofjudgment,” not to weigh the evidence pro and con. Delta Found., Inc. v. United States, 303 F.3d551, 563 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States, Inc. v. StateFarm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)). “Thus, if the agency considers the factorsand articulates a rational relationship between the facts found and the choice made, its decision is15