- 20 -
petitioners to show that respondent abused his discretion. The
burden was not on respondent to provide enough information to
show that he did not abuse his discretion. Nevertheless, we find
that we had more than sufficient information to review
respondent’s determination.
3. Deadline for Submission of Information
Petitioners argue that Ms. Cochran abused her discretion by
not allowing their counsel additional time to submit information
to be considered. Petitioners’ argument is not supported by the
record.
Petitioners assert that they were “initially only given four
weeks” to provide all information. However, they ignore the fact
that Ms. Cochran granted their requested extension and allowed
them until May 14, 2004, to submit information. Additionally,
petitioners have not identified any documents or other
information that they believe Ms. Cochran should have considered
but that they were unable to produce because of the deadline for
submission. Given the thoroughness and the amount of information
submitted, it is unclear why petitioners needed additional time.
We do not believe that Ms. Cochran abused her discretion by
establishing a deadline for the submission of information.
16(...continued)
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec.
3001(c), 112 Stat. 727.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011