1. “Was the Secretary’s denial of MVA’s petition contrary to law, where it was premised on an interpretation of the Agent Orange Act that is contrary to the statute’s text, purpose, and history, as well as VA’s own regulation?”
2. “Was the Secretary’s denial of MVA’s petition arbitrary and capricious, where it lacked a factual basis in the record and baselessly discounted veterans’ eyewitness accounts?”
1. “MVA’s statutory-interpretation argument is simply beside the point. The Agent Orange Act does not give presumptions to anyone other than those who “served in the Republic of Vietnam”—nor does it require the VA to do so…. In sum, MVA has not shown that the VA’s decision was contrary to law.”
2. “Nothing in MVA’s petition for review convinces us that this assessment was arbitrary or capricious…. MVA’s arguments concerning Johnston Island simply do not overcome our narrow, highly deferential standard of review.”
