Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-08-05127/USCOURTS-caDC-08-05127-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 9, 2009 Decided December 18, 2009 

No. 08-5127 

KYAW ZAW NYUNT, 

APPELLANT

v. 

CHAIRMAN, BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS, 

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 1:06-cv-01152) 

Timothy B. Shea argued the cause and filed the briefs for 

appellant. 

Alan Burch, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for 

appellee. With him on the brief was R. Craig Lawrence, 

Assistant U.S. Attorney. 

Before: GARLAND and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, and 

WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge. 

USCA Case #08-5127 Document #1221487 Filed: 12/18/2009 Page 1 of 6
2 

 Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge

KAVANAUGH. 

 KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: Unlike many U.S. 

Government agencies, the Broadcasting Board of Governors 

is authorized to hire non-U.S.-citizens. But there is a catch: 

The BBG may do so only when no “suitably qualified” U.S. 

citizen is available to fill the job in question. 22 U.S.C. § 

1474(1). 

 Nyunt is a U.S. citizen who worked at the BBG, applied 

for a promotion, and lost out to a non-U.S.-citizen. He sued 

the BBG, claiming he was “suitably qualified” and that the 

BBG therefore contravened its statutory mandate when it 

promoted a non-U.S.-citizen over him. The problem is that 

Nyunt brought this claim in federal district court under the 

Administrative Procedure Act. This Court has repeatedly 

held that federal employees may not bring employment and 

personnel suits of this kind under the APA, but instead must 

pursue such claims through the elaborate administrative and 

judicial review system set up by the Civil Service Reform Act 

of 1978. We therefore affirm the District Court’s dismissal of 

Nyunt’s complaint. 

I 

 Kyaw Zaw Nyunt, a U.S. citizen, worked for many years 

as an international radio broadcaster in the Burmese service of 

Voice of America. The Voice of America is run by the 

Broadcasting Board of Governors, a U.S. Government 

agency. In March 2003, Nyunt applied for a promotion to a 

more senior international broadcaster position. The BBG 

selected a non-U.S.-citizen over Nyunt and other applicants. 

USCA Case #08-5127 Document #1221487 Filed: 12/18/2009 Page 2 of 6
3 

 In deciding to hire a non-U.S.-citizen, the BBG relied on 

its internal hiring policy and the relevant portion of its 

authorizing statute, 22 U.S.C. § 1474(1). Section 1474(1) 

provides that the BBG – unlike most federal agencies – may 

hire non-U.S.-citizens. The statute grants that authority, 

however, only “when suitably qualified United States citizens 

are not available.” 

 The BBG has interpreted the phrase “suitably qualified” 

to mean “equally or better qualified.” Guidelines for 

Selection, Promotion, and Employment of Non-U.S. Citizens 

in the Presence of Qualified U.S. Citizen Competitors, App. at 

30. In Nyunt’s view, the BBG’s interpretation rewrites and 

effectively eviscerates Congress’s mandate. Nyunt contends, 

in short, the BBG cannot hire or promote a non-U.S.-citizen 

over a U.S. citizen who is qualified for the position. 

 After the BBG promoted a non-U.S.-citizen over him, 

Nyunt sued under several anti-discrimination statutes. He 

also raised claims under the Administrative Procedure Act 

regarding the BBG’s alleged misinterpretation and violation 

of 22 U.S.C. § 1474(1). See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C). 

 The District Court dismissed Nyunt’s complaint. A prior 

panel of this Court summarily affirmed the District Court’s 

dismissal of all but the present APA claims. We now 

conclude that our precedents squarely foreclose Nyunt’s APA 

claims, and we therefore affirm the District Court’s dismissal 

of those as well. 

II 

 At the outset, the BBG contends that Nyunt lacks 

standing. We disagree. Nyunt alleges that he is a U.S. citizen 

who applied for and was unlawfully denied a promotion. 

USCA Case #08-5127 Document #1221487 Filed: 12/18/2009 Page 3 of 6
4 

That alleged injury is fairly traceable to the BBG’s hiring 

policy and decision. And it likely would be redressed by a 

favorable disposition, which would help establish Nyunt’s 

right to the job in question or to front pay and benefits. See

Compl. ¶¶ C, G (requested relief includes an order “for front 

pay and benefits, if the BBG does not or will not employ 

plaintiff,” and “[s]uch other legal and equitable relief as may 

be just and proper”). 

 We turn, therefore, to analysis of Nyunt’s Administrative 

Procedure Act claim. Nyunt’s choice to bring his claim under 

the APA is problematic because a long line of cases requires 

that federal employees pursue employment and personnel 

challenges of this kind through the procedures set up by the 

Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, rather than under the APA. 

 As the Supreme Court stated in United States v. Fausto, 

the CSRA is comprehensive: It regulates virtually every 

aspect of federal employment and “prescribes in great detail 

the protections and remedies” applicable to adverse personnel 

actions, “including the availability of administrative and 

judicial review.” 484 U.S. 439, 443 (1988). The CSRA is 

also exclusive: It constitutes the remedial regime for federal 

employment and personnel complaints. See Grosdidier v. 

Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors, 560 F.3d 495, 497 (D.C. 

Cir. 2009); Filebark v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 555 F.3d 1009, 

1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Fornaro v. James, 416 F.3d 63, 66-67 

(D.C. Cir. 2005); Graham v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 931, 933-35 

(D.C. Cir. 2004); Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 172 (D.C. 

Cir. 1983); see also Fausto, 484 U.S. at 444; Bush v. Lucas, 

462 U.S. 367, 388-90 (1983); 5 U.S.C. §§ 701(a)(1), 702.1

 

 1

 Many other courts of appeals have ruled the same way. See

Tiltti v. Weise, 155 F.3d 596, 600 (2d Cir. 1998); Pinar v. Dole, 747 

F.2d 899, 912-13 (4th Cir. 1984); Broadway v. Block, 694 F.2d 

USCA Case #08-5127 Document #1221487 Filed: 12/18/2009 Page 4 of 6
5 

When Congress wants to preserve remedies outside the 

CSRA, it does so expressly; for example, the CSRA maintains 

federal employees’ rights to bring suit under Title VII and 

other anti-discrimination laws. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(d); see

Grosdidier, 560 F.3d at 497 n.2. 

 Applying those principles in Grosdidier, we held that the 

CSRA precluded an APA claim that, like Nyunt’s, targeted 

the BBG’s implementation of § 1474(1). We stated that, 

“except where Congress specifies otherwise, the Civil Service 

Reform Act is the proper statutory vehicle for covered federal 

employees to challenge personnel actions by their 

employers.” 560 F.3d at 495-96. “Federal employees may 

not circumvent the [CSRA]’s requirements and limitations by 

resorting to the catchall APA to challenge agency 

employment actions.” Id. at 497. That principle applies to a 

“systemwide challenge” to an agency policy interpreting a 

statute just as it does to the implementation of such a policy in 

a particular case. Fornaro, 416 F.3d at 67-69. And it applies 

even if the CSRA scheme ultimately would provide no relief: 

As we have repeatedly said, “what you get under the CSRA is 

what you get.” Filebark, 555 F.3d at 1010 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). In sum, the settled precedents of this Court 

bar Nyunt’s APA claim; any claim targeting the BBG’s 

interpretation or application of § 1474(1) must proceed 

through the CSRA process. 

 Nyunt argues that he cannot obtain relief for this kind of 

§ 1474-related violation in the CSRA process. He contends 

that this Court therefore retains the power to consider the 

 

979, 986 (5th Cir. 1982); Ryon v. O’Neill, 894 F.2d 199, 202-04 

(6th Cir. 1990); Veit v. Heckler, 746 F.2d 508, 511 (9th Cir. 1984); 

Weatherford v. Dole, 763 F.2d 392, 393-94 (10th Cir. 1985). But 

see Worthington v. United States, 168 F.3d 24 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

USCA Case #08-5127 Document #1221487 Filed: 12/18/2009 Page 5 of 6
6 

BBG’s allegedly illegal hiring policy under the precedent of 

Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (1958). That decision permits, 

in certain limited circumstances, judicial review of agency 

action for alleged statutory violations even when a statute 

precludes review. The Leedom v. Kyne exception applies, 

however, only where (i) the statutory preclusion of review is 

implied rather than express, see Bd. of Governors of the Fed. 

Reserve Sys. v. MCorp Fin., Inc., 502 U.S. 32, 44 (1991); see 

also McBryde v. Comm. to Review Circuit Council Conduct & 

Disability Orders of the Judicial Conference of the U.S., 264 

F.3d 52, 63-64 (D.C. Cir. 2001); (ii) there is no alternative 

procedure for review of the statutory claim; and (iii) the 

agency plainly acts “in excess of its delegated powers and 

contrary to a specific prohibition in the” statute that is “clear 

and mandatory,” Leedom, 358 U.S. at 188; see also Nat’l Air 

Traffic Controllers Ass’n AFL-CIO v. Fed. Serv. Impasses 

Panel, 437 F.3d 1256, 1263-64 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Even 

assuming arguendo that Nyunt’s claim can meet the first and 

second requirements, it cannot meet the third, which requires 

that the agency error be “so extreme that one may view it as 

jurisdictional or nearly so.” Griffith v. FLRA, 842 F.2d 487, 

493 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Given that very stringent standard, a 

Leedom v. Kyne claim is essentially a Hail Mary pass – and in 

court as in football, the attempt rarely succeeds. So it is here: 

Even if the BBG has misinterpreted or otherwise evaded its 

statutory obligation to hire “suitably qualified” U.S. citizens, 

its action is not the kind of “extreme” error that would justify 

reliance on the Leedom v. Kyne exception. 

 We affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

So ordered. 

USCA Case #08-5127 Document #1221487 Filed: 12/18/2009 Page 6 of 6