# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 20-1071 September Term, 2020 USTC-A DM-2-19 Filed O n: April 23 , 20 21 Yaakov Barr-Zv ulun ,

App ellant
v . United Sta tes T ax Court, Ad mission s Of f ice, App ellee ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES TA X COURT BEFORE: T ate l, Pillard, a nd W alker, Circuit Ju dges J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes T ax Court an d on the briefs f iled b y

the pa rties, se e Fe d. R. App . P. 34 (a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 3 4(j). Upon con siderat ion o f

the foregoing an d a ppe llee’s m otion for lea v e to f ile an ap pen dix and the lodged ap pen dix, it is ORDERED tha t ap pellee ’s mo tion for lea v e to f ile an ap pen dix be grante d. T he Clerk is directed to f ile the lodged ap pen dix. Th e co urt wi ll not consid er ap pellan t’s extra-record exhibits. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P . 10 (a). It is FURTHER ORDERED A ND ADJUDGED tha t th e Unite d S tate s T ax Court’s July 25, 20 19 decision de nying ap pellan t’s request for recon siderat ion o f the results of

his examina tion to p ractice a s a n on-a ttorn ey before t hatcou rt be af f irmed . T he T ax Court correctly conclude d th at t he app ellantha d n ot d em onst rated ground s for th e recon siderat ion o f

his e xam inatio n resu lts. Itis un dispu ted tha t ap pellan t did no t pa ss the T ax Court’s w ritten examina tion, an d a ppe llant h as n ot d em onst rated tha t a clerical error was m ade in sco ring his examina tion. T he T ax Court th erefore p rov ided ap pellan t w ith a n o ppo rtunity for review tha t com plied w ith its p olicy an d th e requirem ent s of du e proce ss. S ee Christianse n v. Adm issions Clerk, 4 41 F. Ap p’x 1, *2-3 (D.C. Cir. 2011 ). Furthe r, even if

the cou rt were t o a ssum e a ppe llant is p rotect ed und er th e A me ricans w ith Disab ilities Act in this ca se, se e 4 2 U.S .C. §§ 12 131 -121 32, the record doe s no t supp ort a ny arg um enttha t th e T ax Court failed to p rope rly acco mm oda te a ppe llant o r discrimina ted against him on the ba sis of disab ility . T o th e e xten t ap pellan t no w argues the T ax Court vi olate d th e Occu pat iona l Health an d S afety Act, d id no t com ply w ith

# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 20-1071 September Term, 2020 I.R.C. § 63 30, or d iscriminate d a gainst him on a b asis ot her t han disab ility , such argume nts h ave bee n forfeited by his failure t o raise the m before t he T ax Court, se e Cruzv. Am. Airlines, In c., 3 56 F.3d 32 0, 3 29 (D.C. Cir. 2004 ), an d, in an y event, he has notsho w n h e would b e e ntitled to relief on the se groun ds. Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2