What must be present for appellate review of an administrative decision to affirm the agency's decision?

For an appellate review of an administrative decision to affirm the agency's decision, the requirement is that there must be substantial evidence in the record to support the agency's findings. Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It indicates that there is a sufficient amount of credible evidence to justify the agency's actions or decisions.

The presence of substantial evidence ensures that the agency did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, affirming the validity of its decision-making process. Courts typically evaluate whether the agency’s conclusion is justified by looking for evidence that might support the agency’s findings rather than reweighing evidence or making different determinations.

Other levels of evidence, such as minimal or insignificant evidence, would not suffice in showing that the agency’s conclusions are supported in a way that would withstand judicial scrutiny. Similarly, requiring overwhelming evidence would set an impractically high standard that is not typically employed in administrative proceedings. Thus, substantial evidence stands as the correct choice for affirming an agency's decision during appellate review.