What type of evidence is required for affirming an agency's decision on appeal?

The requirement for affirming an agency's decision on appeal typically hinges on the standard of "substantial evidence." This standard is used to assess whether the agency's findings and conclusions are supported by enough evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion. Essentially, it ensures that there is a solid foundation for the agency's decision, reinforcing that the agency acted within its authority and that its decision is based on credible and reliable evidence rather than mere speculation or assumptions.

Substantial evidence does not mean that the evidence is overwhelming; instead, it emphasizes that there is enough relevant information to justify the agency's decision. This standard serves as a balance to ensure that administrative agencies have the discretion to make decisions while still being subject to a level of scrutiny that protects the rights of individuals affected by those decisions.

In contrast, minimal evidence would suggest a lower threshold that could lead to arbitrary or poorly supported decisions. A preponderance of evidence requires that the evidence is more likely true than not, which is a higher standard than what is typically necessary for administrative decisions. Direct evidence, while valuable, refers specifically to evidence that directly links A to B, often requiring firsthand accounts or observations; in many administrative contexts, both direct and circumstantial evidence may be considered