Submitted July 19, 2018
On
Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the District
of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA-374-16; DCHA-42-17 C)
Gail
Williams, pro se.
Mario
Cuahutle was on the brief for respondent.
Before
Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, McLeese, Associate Judge, and
Nebeker, Senior Judge.
NEBEKER, SENIOR JUDGE
Petitioner
Gail Williams seeks review of a decision by respondent
District of Columbia Housing Authority ("DCHA")
terminating her housing subsidy because she permitted a
person who was not a member of her household to stay in her
home. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse.
I.
Procedural Posture
Ms.
Williams resides in the District of Columbia and was
receiving a housing subsidy from DCHA through the Housing
Choice Voucher Program ("HCVP"). Following a
hearing held on February 16 and April 25, 2017, a DCHA
hearing officer issued an informal hearing decision, dated
June 9, 2017, terminating Ms. Williams's participation in
the HCVP program, as well as a supplemental memorandum, dated
June 12, 2017, furthering explaining the informal hearing
decision. Ms. Williams did not seek reconsideration by the
Executive Director of DCHA. However, on August 28, 2017, she
petitioned this court for review.
Based
on representations from the parties, submitted in response to
a show-cause order from this court, we held that, due to a
factual dispute regarding whether the June 2017 informal
hearing decision was timely mailed to Ms. Williams, we could
not determine whether her petition for review by this court
was timely filed. Williams v. District of Columbia Hous.
Auth., No. 17-AA-968, Mem. Op. & J. at 2 (D.C. Oct.
10, 2018). We therefore "remand[ed] the record to the
agency to hold a hearing and to determine the facts relevant
to the timeliness of Ms. Williams's petition for
review." Id. at 3. On remand, the DCHA hearing
officer held a hearing on January 30 and February 12, 2019,
and, on March 4, 2019, issued an informal hearing decision.
The March 2019 decision found that DCHA did not mail a copy
of the June 2017 decision to Ms. Williams, and that she did
not learn of the June 2017 decision until her then-counsel
called DCHA on July 28, 2017, and was provided with a copy of
the decision.[1] The hearing officer therefore held that
DCHA had failed to provide timely notice of the June 2017
decision to Ms. Williams. Both Ms. Williams and DCHA
requested reconsideration of the March 2019 decision by the
Executive Director of DCHA.[2]On April 2, 2019, the Executive
Director affirmed the portion of the March 2019 decision
finding that DCHA did not timely notify Ms. Williams of the
June 2017 decision, but vacated other portions that he
determined exceeded the scope of the mandate on
remand.[3] With remand complete, the supplemental
record was submitted to this court.
In
light of DCHA's determination that Ms. Williams did not
receive timely notice of the 2017 informal hearing decision,
and its recitation of facts establishing that Ms. Williams
did not receive the June 2017 decision until July 28, 2017 at
the earliest, we construe her August 28, 2017 petition for
review in this court as timely because, calculated according
to this court's rules, she filed her petition on the
thirtieth day after she received notice of the agency's
decision. D.C. App. R. 15(a)(2) ("the petition for
review [from an agency order or decision] must be filed
within 30 days after notice is given"); D.C. App. R.
26(a)(1) ("in computing any period of time . . .
[e]xclude the day of the act"); D.C. App. R. 26(a)(3)
("[i]nclude the last day of the period unless it is a
Saturday [or] Sunday").
We
therefore proceed to consider the merits of Ms.
Williams's petition, in which she challenges the June
2017 decision to terminate her subsidy based on the
agency's determination that she had violated applicable
regulations pertaining to guest stays in her home.
II.
Factual Background
In
2016, DCHA issued to Ms. Williams three recommendations for
termination from the HCVP program. On July 6, 2016, DCHA
issued a recommendation for termination based upon alleged
violations of 14 DCMR § 5808.7 pertaining to non-payment
of rent, disturbance of neighbors, destruction of property,
and unauthorized occupants. On September 30, 2016, DCHA
issued another recommendation based upon alleged violations
of 24 C.F.R. § 982.553(c) pertaining to engagement in
criminal activity by a household member. Finally, on November
15, 2016, DCHA issued a third recommendation based upon
alleged violations of 24 C.F.R. § 982.551(h)(2) and 14
DCMR § 5808.3(c) pertaining to allowing unauthorized
occupants in the home.[4]
Following
an informal hearing held on November 16, 2016, a DCHA hearing
officer issued an informal hearing decision dated November
18, 2016. That decision denied, for lack of sufficient
evidence, DCHA's July 2016 recommendation for
termination, but granted a continuance as to any issues
raised ...