NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BARRY AHURUONYE,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-2493

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-1221-15-1172-W-1.

______________________ 

Decided: December 8, 2016

______________________ 

BARRY AHURUONYE, Hyattsville, MD, pro se.

 

MELISSA BAKER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN C.

MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 
2 AHURUONYE v. INTERIOR

Barry Ahuruonye petitions for review from a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board finding that 

he was not entitled to corrective action under the Whistleblower Protection Act because he failed to establish 

that his protected disclosures were a contributing factor 

to the alleged retaliatory personnel action. Because 

substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, we 

affirm. 

I 

During the relevant period, Mr. Ahuruonye was employed as a Grants Management Specialist for the United 

States Fish & Wildlife Service. In May 2013, 

Mr. Ahuruonye suffered a loss of consciousness at work 

that required hospitalization. On February 7, 2014, he 

emailed Lisa Van Alstyne, his then-supervisor, asking

that she complete a Form CA-2 so that he could proceed 

with his workers’ compensation claim. Ms. Van Alstyne

did not complete the form because, according to her, the 

form was blank and a human resources employee had told

her that Mr. Ahuruonye needed to first fill out the top 

portion before she could complete the supervisor’s portion. 

Ms. Van Alstyne asked human resources to explain the 

correct process to Mr. Ahuruonye. Ms. Van Alstyne never 

received a revised Form CA-2 from Mr. Ahuruonye.

On September 5, 2015, Mr. Ahuruonye complained to 

the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that Ms. Van Alstyne

failed to fill out the Form CA-2 as reprisal for a 2012 

complaint he filed with the United States Department of 

Interior Office of Inspector General (Interior OIG) alleging that Penny Bartnicki, Chief of the Coastal Impact 

Assistance Program, unlawfully approved certain awards. 

Two weeks later, before the OSC completed its investigation, Mr. Ahuruonye filed an individual right-of-action 

appeal with the Board under the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) (2012), amended by Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012, Pub. L. 
AHURUONYE v. INTERIOR 3

No. 112–199, 126 Stat. 1465. Shortly thereafter, the OSC 

closed its investigation and informed Mr. Ahuruonye that 

he could seek corrective action.

On initial hearing, an Administrative Judge denied 

Mr. Ahuruonye’s request for corrective action on the 

merits. Mr. Ahuruonye sought relief from the full Board, 

which vacated the Administrative Judge’s finding in part 

but sustained the denial of Mr. Ahuruonye’s petition. The 

Board concluded that Mr. Ahuruonye’s disclosure to 

Interior OIG did not contribute to Ms. Van Alstyne’s 

decision to not complete Mr. Ahuruonye’s Form CA-2. 

This case followed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9).

II

“We review the Board’s decision to determine whether 

it is ‘(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having 

been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.’” Grover v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 828 F.3d 1378, 

1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence, but less than the weight of the evidence.” Jones v. 

Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 834 F.3d 1361, 1366 

(Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citations and quotation marks 

omitted). Under that deferential standard, “[i]t is not for 

this court to reweigh the evidence before the Board.” 

McMillan v. Dep’t of Justice, 812 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. 

Cir. 2016) (quoting Henry v. Dep’t of Navy, 902 F.2d 949, 

951 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

To prevail in seeking a corrective action, a whistleblower must demonstrate “by a preponderance of the 

evidence that he or she made a protected disclosure under 

§ 2302(b)(8) that was a contributing factor to the employee’s” adverse personnel action. Whitmore v. Dep’t of 

Labor, 680 F.3d 1353, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The “con-
4 AHURUONYE v. INTERIOR

tributing factor” element may be proven “through circumstantial evidence, such as evidence that (A) the official 

taking the personnel action knew of the disclosure . . . ; 

and (B) the personnel action occurred within a period of 

time such that a reasonable person could conclude that 

the disclosure . . . was a contributing factor in the personnel action.” 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)(1); Cahill v. Merit Sys. 

Prot. Bd., 821 F.3d 1370, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

Here, the Board determined that Mr. Ahuruonye 

failed to establish his prima facie case because he did not 

show that Ms. Van Alstyne knew of his 2012 complaint 

against Ms. Bartnicki before she failed to complete his 

Form CA-2. Applying our deferential “substantial evidence” standard, we agree. The Board reasonably credited Ms. Van Alstyne’s sworn statement that “[i]n February 

2014, [she] was not aware that Mr. Ahuruonye had disclosed anything to the [Interior OIG] related to any ‘illegal grant awards.’” Resp. App. 22, 28 ¶ 3. Mr. Ahuruonye

relies primarily on two pieces of circumstantial evidence

predating Ms. Van Alstyne’s complained-of conduct: (1) a 

July 31, 2013 email from Ms. Van Alstyne, which the 

Board characterized as referring only generally to “OIG 

auditors,” and (2) an October 25, 2013 declaration by 

Ms. Van Alstyne submitted in a separate, equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint Mr. Ahuruonye filed. 

Mr. Ahuruonye does not contend on appeal that the July 

31, 2013 email reflects knowledge of his disclosure, and 

we see no reversible error in the Board’s conclusion that 

Ms. Van Alstyne’s declaration did not sufficiently show 

that she knew Mr. Ahuruonye reported Ms. Bartnicki to 

the Interior OIG.

Mr. Ahuruonye also points to an affidavit he prepared 

for the EEO matter, dated October 24, 2013, which describes his Interior OIG disclosure. Although he claims 

that Ms. Van Alstyne reviewed it and thus knew of his 

disclosure, here he identifies no evidence supporting that 

assertion. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the 
AHURUONYE v. INTERIOR 5

Board’s finding that Mr. Ahuruonye’s protected disclosure 

was not a contributing factor to Ms. Van Alstyne’s failure 

to complete his Form CA-2.

We find Mr. Ahuruonye’s remaining arguments unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s denial of 

Mr. Ahuruonye’s petition.

AFFIRMED

No costs.