With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". law.” Moreover, the allocation of the burden of proof in such administrative proceedings is set forth in the director’s regulations, which provide that: “The appellant has the burden of proving that the actions appealed were arbitrary, capricious or contrary to rule or law.” Administrative Procedure P10-3-8, 4 Code Colo.Reg. 801-2 (1987). Thus, under the applicable statutory and regulatory scheme here, the burden of proof was properly placed on plaintiff to show the panel that the selection and examination process conducted for the state lottery director position was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to rule or law. Section 24-50-112(3)(a); Administrative Procedure P10-3-8, 4 Code Colo.Reg. 801-2 (1987); see Renteria v. Colorado State Department of Personnel, 811 P.2d 797 (Colo. 1991) (<HOLDING>); see also § 24-4-105(7), C.R.S. (1988

A: holding that in the absence of an express statutory allocation of the burden of proof the board of immigration appealss placement of the burden on the alien was reasonable under chevron
B: holding that traditional allocation of burden of proof to the party challenging the decisions applies to decisions under the tca
C: holding that a similar instruction reduced the states burden of proof
D: holding that similar burden of proof was properly placed on appellant in administrative appeal brought under provisions of comparable statute concerning the allocation of positions in the state personnel system
D.