ALJDEC - Licensing
24A-123-INS · Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions - Insurance · 2025-02-18
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In the Matter of:
SAMUEL EKPENYONG,
Petitioner.
No. 24A-123-INS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 29, 2025
APPEARANCES: Samuel Ekpenyong represented himself. Assistant Attorney General Lynette Evans represented the Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions - Insurance (Department).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Department’s Exhibits 1 through 5.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On or about September 13, 2024, Petitioner submitted his application for a resident insurance license to the Department. See Department’s Exhibit 1.
2. On or about September 18, 2024, the Department notified Petitioner requesting that he complete the application. The Department specified that Petitioner needed to:
Complete the AZ Electronic Background Check and Fingerprint Process. Visit https://difi.az.gov/finger-print for instructions.
Further, the Department advised as follows:
Applicants have only 60 days from the date of the application submission in which to correct a deficient application. Please correct your license application as directed above within the 60-day period to avoid the withdrawal of your application and the relinquishment of your fees pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code R20-6-708(D)(3).
3. The link in the letter takes applicants to the specific two-step process that is required for the Department to be able to obtain the requisite fingerprints. The link notifies users that the Department “does not accept AZ DPS Fingerprint Clearance Cards.”
4. On December 3, 2024, the Department notified Petitioner that the Application was withdrawn due to his failure to have corrected the application within 60 days of the application submission. Further, that due the failure, “[a]ny and all fees you paid are now forfeited” pursuant to A.R.S. Section 20-167.
5. On December 5, 2024, Petitioner requested an appeal. In his appeal, Petitioner noted that he had tried to obtain the fingerprints through Prometrics in March 2024 after completing the state examination, and he felt that the instructions were from Prometrics and Fieldprint were incomplete. Petitioner also provided a copy of the Level One Fingerprint Clearance Card (FCC) he had obtained from Arizona Department of Public Safety.
6. At hearing, Petitioner reiterated the steps he had taken to obtain fingerprints and felt that the fact he had obtained the DPS FCC prior to his application should be sufficient. Petitioner questioned why he had to use the Department process when he had now already spent the money.
7. At hearing, the Department argued that, as the instructions had noted, the Department does not use the DPS FCC process and that Petitioner simply failed to follow the Department’s instructions and use the correct process. The Department argued that, pursuant to A.A.C. R20-6-708(D)(3), the fees are forfeited when an application has to be withdrawn.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(1).
The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.
A preponderance of the evidence is:
The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).
The evidence presented at hearing shows that Petitioner failed to respond and complete his September 13, 2024 application within 60 days. The evidence presented demonstrated that Petitioner has been confused about a fingerprinting process that took place prior to his application and that he did not follow the particular and specific Arizona directions to obtain the proper credentialing for the fingerprints required by the Department. Therefore, pursuant to A.R.S. § 20-167(B) and A.A.C. R20-6-708, the fees associated with the application are forfeited and nonrefundable.
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s appeal should be dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Samuel Ekpenyong’s appeal is dismissed.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, February 18, 2025.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Barbara D. Richardson,
Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions - Insurance
Samuel Ekpenyong
[email redacted]
Lynette Evans, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General
Public Law Section
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff