What type of evidence will generally support an agency's decision for appellate review?

In administrative law, the standard of review for an agency's decision typically involves the presence of substantial evidence. A scintilla of evidence refers to the minimum amount of evidence required to support a conclusion, which is often seen as a low threshold. In many cases, even a slight amount of evidence, which could potentially support the agency's findings, is sufficient for upholding the decision upon appellate review. This aligns with the principle that appellate courts afford deference to agency decisions that are backed by any evidence that allows for an inference in support of the agency’s conclusions.

While direct evidence and corroborative evidence can strengthen an agency's case significantly, they are not strictly necessary for upholding a decision on appeal. The standard of "a scintilla of evidence" acknowledges that in administrative proceedings, the evidence may be less rigorous than what might be required in criminal or civil cases. The presence of a scintilla means that some evidence exists, indicating that the agency's decision is not arbitrary or capricious but rather grounded in some form of rational basis, which appellate courts respect as part of the administrative process.