Chevron deference). The Chevron standard was developed in the context of precedential administrative decisions, where an agency’s interpretation of a statute has the force of law. In the case at bar, we are dealing with an agency’s change of policy in an unpublished, non-precedential decision and not with an agency’s precedential interpretation of a particular statute within its jurisdiction. Some Circuits including this one have applied the Skidmore standard when examining non-precedential agency decisions. E.g., Leavitt, 552 F.3d at 79-80 (recognizing that “if an informal agency interpretation is deemed not to warrant Chevron deference, it may nonetheless lay claim to a lesser degree of deference under the Skidmore banner”); Godinez-Arroyo v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 848, 850 (8th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Boykin v. KeyCorp, 521 F.3d 202, 208 (2d
holding that the standard of review for an award of statutory damages is even more deferential than an abuse of discretion standard holding that the less deferential skidmore standard was a more appropriate standard to be applied to an agencys unpublished opinion holding that if a state case explicitly states that the state standard is more favorable to the defendant than the federal standard the federal claim is considered adjudicated below when the state standard is applied holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard