to the familiar two-part test: First, S/A Robertson’s actions were the product of the wide discretion afforded to him as a BIA officer in effectuating Block’s arrest. By its terms, the Handbook merely “establishes guidelines for contact with ... arrestees” and explicitly “permits some discretion in the use of handcuffs and restraining devices.” The Handbook repeatedly limits its own recommendations to, for example, “the majority of arrests” and “most prisoners.” While some provisions of the Handbook are phrased in imperative language, in context, all of the decisions S/A Robertson made regarding Block’s arrest remained “discretionary, involving ‘an element of judgment or choice.’ ” Riley, 486 F.3d at 1032; cf. Four v. United States ex rel. BIA, 431 F.Supp.2d 985, 991 (D.N.D.2006) (<HOLDING>). The Handbook’s granting of discretion is
holding that such provisions are valid recognizing that only a claimant is entitled to the secretarys assistance in the development of the facts pertinent to the claim the benefit of the doubt and the determination whether the claim is well grounded holding other provisions of the handbook relating to a dispatcher determination of whether immediate assistance is needed are discretionary holding that the determination of whether a counterclaim is compulsory is made as a matter of law holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa