ALJDEC - Licensing

25A-CR2018157769-AGR · Department of Agriculture · 2026-04-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of the Appeal of:

ZACHARY VASQUEZ,

Applicant for Pesticide Applicator Certification,

Appellant.

No. 25A-CR2018157769-AGR

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 22, 2026.

APPEARANCES:

Appellant: Zachary Vasquez

Department of Agriculture: Deanie Reh, Assistant Attorney General

Danelle Keyes

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Department’s Exhibits 1-4.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On or about May 14, 2019, Appellant Zachary Vasquez was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court of Child/Vulnerable Adult – Physical Abuse, a class 6 felony, undesignated. Appellant was sentenced to supervised probation for a term of 5 years.

In October 2025, the Arizona Department of Agriculture (Department) received an application for Certified Applicator from Appellant.

On October 22, 2025, the Department issued a Notice of Denial of Applicator Certification (Denial) to Appellant. The Denial provided that the application was denied because Appellant had been convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude and/or a felony.

Appellant appealed the denial. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a hearing on the matter.

At the hearing, Appellant acknowledged the Department’s concern and the process that must occur. However, Appellant wished to note that his offense was non-aggressive and non-repetitive. He testified that he could not really document every little hardship he encountered during his probation that prevented his full compliance, but he still prevailed and managed to be a positive influence for his loved ones. Appellant asserted that he did not violate probation and had matured since the conviction.

Danelle Keyes, Central Licensing Supervisor, testified that the issuance of the applicator license for which Appellant applied would grant Appellant unsupervised access inside homes or commercial buildings. Due to the nature of Appellant’s conviction and the short period of time since his release from probation, granting such access was a concern for the Department. Ms. Keyes stated that, when reviewing applications, consideration is given to the length of time since the conviction, history, repetitiveness, and the consumer’s point of view regarding risk level.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence.

A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The Department is the duly constituted authority for the regulation and control of pest management and certification of pesticide applicators.

The Director of the Department may deny a license based on the information in the application.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3-3624(B) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

B. The following nonexclusive acts are grounds for disciplinary action:

. . . .

Being convicted of a felony, a misdemeanor arising from or in connection with a license issued pursuant to this chapter after issuance of the license or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.

The uncontroverted evidence in this matter established that Appellant was convicted of Child/Vulnerable Adult – Physical Abuse, a class 6 felony, undesignated, on May 14, 2019.

Accordingly, grounds exist under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3-3624(B)(8) to deny Appellant’s application at this time.

The Administrative Law Judge applauds Appellant’s determination to improve his life. However, until sufficient time has passed since release from probation to establish the license should be granted, denial of the license is appropriate.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Department’s order, the Department affirm the decision to deny Appellant’s application for Certified Applicator.

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, April 8, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Paul E. Brierley, Director

Department of Agriculture

Deanie Reh

Office of the Attorney General

[email redacted]

Zachary Vasquez

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff