Plaintiff asserts that this Court has previously considered the Report and Plan as a document created by ONHIR. (Doc. 25 at 6-7) (citing Louise Ray v. Office of Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation, No. CV-22-08101-PCT-SPL, 2023 WL 4761789, at *3 (D. Ariz. July 26, 2023), and Tso, 2019 WL 1877360, at *8). ONHIR recognizes in its reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment that in Tso, the Court “considered the ‘Report and Plan' and ‘Plan Update' because they ‘helped to identify potential “holes” in the administrative record and informed the Court of the factors used by the Agency in assessing an applicant's claim of being “temporarily away” from the JUA.'” (Doc. 30 at 7) (citing Tso, 2019 WL 1877360, at *7-8.)
Further, the IHO dismissed the entirety of Plaintiff's hearing testimony based on Plaintiff's ability to receive work assignments, finding that “[t]he employer's ability to contact [Plaintiff] is central and most material to a determination about whether [Plaintiff's] testimony is credible and relevant[.]” (Doc. 13-10 at 6) See Ray v. Office of Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation, No. CV-22-08101-PCT-SPL, 2023 WL 4761789, at *7-8 (D. Ariz. July 26, 2023) (IHO erred in rejecting applicant's entire testimony for one reason). ONHIR asserts that Plaintiff's statements in his application are “extremely relevant” (Doc. 22 at 15), yet in the cases ONHIR cites, the IHOs discredited the applicants' testimony based only in part on the applicants' contradictory statements.