1. Administrative Agencies, Officers and Agents - click for more -
An interlocutory stay of a deportation order should be granted "only when there is a substantial likelihood that the petitioner will prevail on the merits and the petitioner will be greatly or irreparably injured if the stay is not granted." Loti v. Immigration Board, 8 A.S.R.2d 107, 109 (1988). Because deportation tends severely to disrupt the life of the one deported, whether a stay is granted pending trial usually depends on whether the petitioner appears to have a good chance of prevailing at trial.This head note is also edited.'for test

The Administrative Law Judge Act of 1998 transferred the final administrative agency hearing authority of the Personnel Advisory Board to the Administrative Law Judge.Nat\\\'l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm\\\'r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).This is edited.

When a person loses the status which entitled him to enter or remain in the territory , he has no further right to remain indefinitely. A.S.C.A. § 41.0407.This head note is edited.

2. Powers & Proceedings of Administrative Agencies, Officer & Agents
a. Due Process - click for more -
Argument that license was "revoked" without procedural due process was unfounded where evidence shows license was never granted. Am. Sam. Const. art. I § 2.

In order to have a cognizable claim for deprivation of procedural due process, one must first possess a "liberty" or "property" interest in the government action complained of. Am. Sam. Const. art. I § 2.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that only the most egregious official conduct can be said to be arbitrary in the constitutional sense. A government official whose action “shocks the conscience” violates substantive due process. Thus, in a due process challenge to executive action, the threshold question is whether behavior of the governmental officer is so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience. Government officials who use force with the intent to harm an individual is an action that may be deemed shocking.   - Bartolome v. JKL, Inc., CA No. 30-08, slip op. (Trial Div. Jun. 21, 2012) (order granting in part and denying in part def.’s mot. for summ. j.)

b. Rules and Regulations
c. Hearings and Adjudications - click for more -
It is the Immigration Board’s responsibility to determine whether an alien is deportable. Such determinations are made at a hearing, wherein, the alien facing deportation is entitled to be present. A.S.C.A. § 41.0605. Consequently, ASG is obligated to provide the alien, whose immigration status is at issue at the deportation hearing, with reasonable notice of the hearing, including the time and place of the hearing. A.S.C.A. §§ 41.0205(7)(a), 41.0607(a)(1). A deportation proceeding is not required if the alien, “admits [to   - Bartolome v. JKL, Inc., CA No. 30-08, slip op. (Trial Div. Jun. 21, 2012) (order granting in part and denying in part def.’s mot. for summ. j.)

d. General Provisions
e. Agency Interpretation of Rules & Regulations
3. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
a. Finality and Exhaustion - click for more -
If the Attorney General’s Office does not respond to an administrative claim letter within three months, the court will treat that silence as a rejection of the administrative claim letter and deem that the plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies, which will in turn grant the court subject matter jurisdiction over a claim brought under the Government Tort Liability Act.   - Soloa v. Am. Samoa Gov’t, CA No. 77-07, slip op. (Trial Div. March 29, 2012) (order denying mot. for reconsideration of order denying mots. for sum. j. and dismissal)

b. Procedure - click for more -
Application to be registered as holder of matai title "Taufetee," to which there was one objector who also became candidate. Trial Jurisdiction of the High Court, Chief Justice Morrow, held that applicant was ineligible, having been convicted for infamous crime, and awarded title to objector.

Candidate for matai who has committed infamous crime cannot be registered as matai. (Codification Sec. 80)

c. Scope of Review
d. Disposition - click for more -
During the early part of November   - Afoa v. Sevaaetasi, 1 A.S.R. 317 (Trial Div. 1919)

e. Limitations on Review - click for more -
Collateral issues concerning the Corrections Division or the Warden’s acting outside its/his scope of authority or violating constitutional or statutory rights can be addressed by the High Court’s Trial Division in a civil action. A.S.C.A. § 3.0208(a)(7)-(8).   - Am. Samoa Gov’t v. Noa, CR No. 96-10, slip op. (Trial Div. July 10, 2012) (order dismissing motion)

4. General Provisions - click for more -
When the government makes rules to govern the conduct of its affairs, it must abide by those rules and act within its authority.   - Sala v. American Samoa Gov't, 21 A.S.R.2d 14

Because the Governor has general supervision and control of all executive departments, agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, personnel decisions are subject to his direction as long as his actions are in accordance with applicable territorial and federal laws and rules. Am. Samoa Art. II, § 7; A.S.C.A. § 7.0110; A.S.A.C. §§ 4.0102, 4.0111(b).   - Sala v. American Samoa Gov't, 21 A.S.R.2d 14

The Administrative Law Judge Act of 1998 transferred the final administrative agency hearing authority of the Personnel Advisory Board to the Administrative Law Judge.Nat\\\'l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm\\\'r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183 (Trial Div. 2001).This is edited.

Constitutional statutory authority is always paramount to administrative rule authority.    - Vaela’a v. Sunia, 1 A.S.R.3d 134 (Trial Div. 1997)

5. Separation of Administrative and other Powers