whether the Commission’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. 1. Whether the accommodation is necessary. The FHA requires that an accommodation be offered to persons with disabilities if the accommodation “is (1) reasonable and (2) necessary to (3) afford [disabled] persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.” Lapid-Laurel, 284 F.3d at 457 (quoting Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard Cty., Md., 124 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir.1997)). Federal courts have interpreted the necessary requirement of the FHA as “meaning that, without the accommodation; the [complainant] will be denied an . equal opportunity to obtain the housing of her choice.” Wisconsin Cmty. Servs., 465 F.3d at 749; see also Smith & Lee Assoc., Inc. v. City of Taylor, Mich., 102 F.3d 781, 795 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In other words, in order to satisfy the
holding that to reopen a case an alien must show that the new evidence would likely change the result holding that the disabled individual bears the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that that accommodation is objectively reasonable and that the defendant was entitled to prevail because the plaintiffs proposed accommodation of remaining on unpaid medical leave until another customer service or receptionist position opened up was not a reasonable accommodation under the ada holding that a plaintiff must show the availability of reasonable accommodation to prevail on a failuretoaccommodate claim holding that complainants must show that but for the accommodation they likely will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice holding that to establish a violation of due process an alien must show that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her claims internal quotation marks omitted