NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JUAN L. RAMIREZ,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2024-1643

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. NY-0752-19-0065-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: September 12, 2024

______________________ 

JUAN L. RAMIREZ, SR., Paterson, NJ, pro se. 

 ELIZABETH W. FLETCHER, Office of General Counsel, 

United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ALLISON JANE 

BOYLE, KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH. 

 ______________________ 

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LINN and PROST, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 24-1643 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 09/12/2024
2 RAMIREZ v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Juan L. Ramirez appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) dismissing his administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the following 

reasons, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Ramirez is an employee of the United Stated Postal 

Service (Postal Service). S. Appx. 45.1 He has been employed by the Postal Service since February 1998. Id. In 

November 2017, the Postal Service notified Mr. Ramirez 

that his position, PS-04 Mail Handler, had to be abolished

due to “realignment of workload with the staffing requirements of the tour.” Id. He was encouraged to bid on one of 

the newly created positions or, alternatively, be automatically reassigned to a vacant position. S. Appx. 27 n.1. In 

December 2017, the Postal Service posted vacancies for employees that were realigned and allowed them to bid based 

on their work shifts (e.g., night, day, afternoon). S. Appx. 

45. Mr. Ramirez bid on a mail handler position but was 

unsuccessful. Id. 

Shortly thereafter, the Postal Service posted additional 

vacancies to all mail handlers. S. Appx. 46. Several of 

these positions were posted in error, and the Postal Service 

was unable to cancel the postings from the online bidding 

system. S. Appx. 27 n.1. Management, however, wrote the 

word “CANCEL” on the paper postings placed in a common 

area. Id.; see also S. Appx. 46. Mr. Ramirez bid for and 

was awarded one of the cancelled positions in the online

bidding system, which was a PS-05 Mail Handler Equipment Operator. S. Appx. 27 n.1, S. Appx. 46. In a letter 

dated February 2, 2018, the Postal Service notified Mr. 

Ramirez the new PS-05 Mail Handler Equipment Operator

1 “S. Appx.” refers to the supplemental appendix attached to Respondent’s Informal Brief.

Case: 24-1643 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 09/12/2024
RAMIREZ v. MSPB 3

position would be abolished. S. Appx. 55. In October 2018, 

Mr. Ramirez was offered a choice between several positions 

and management automatically placing him in one of the 

positions. S. Appx. 58. In January 2019, he was officially 

reassigned to a PS-04 Mail Handler position by management. S. Appx. 78. 

Mr. Ramirez timely appealed the reassignment to the 

Board, alleging he suffered an involuntary demotion because he was downgraded from PS-05 Mail Handler Equipment Operator (the cancelled position) to PS-04 Mail 

Handler. S. Appx. 8. The Board did not address the merits 

of Mr. Ramirez’s demotion claim because it determined 

that it lacked jurisdiction over his claim. S. Appx. 8–12. 

The Board found that Mr. Ramirez is not an employee entitled to appeal an adverse action to the Board. S. Appx. 

11–12. Mr. Ramirez filed a petition for review by the full 

Board, which was denied. S. Appx 1–2. Mr. Ramirez appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

We must uphold the Board’s decision unless 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 

following; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5. 

U.S.C. § 7703(c). Whether the Board lacks jurisdiction is a 

question of law we review de novo. Jones v. Merit Sys. Prot. 

Bd., 98 F.4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2024).

When an individual appeals to the Board, he or she has 

the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, 

that the Board has jurisdiction. Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. 

Bd., 47 F.3d 409, 410 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.56(b)(2). Under 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d), an employee 

against whom adverse action is taken is entitled to appeal 

to the Board. The adverse action includes a reduction in 

grade or a reduction in pay. 5 U.S.C. § 7512. Mr. Ramirez 

argues the Board has jurisdiction because he is an 

Case: 24-1643 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 09/12/2024
4 RAMIREZ v. MSPB

employee that suffered a reduction in grade and a reduction in pay. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 5–6.

To establish jurisdiction, the individual appealing an 

adverse action must qualify as an employee under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7511(a)(1). Postal Service employees are not employees 

under the Board’s jurisdiction unless they are “preference 

eligible,” 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B), or meet set requirements 

in their Postal Service position. 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(8). 

Those requirements, defined in 39 U.S.C. § 1005(a), explain that the Board’s jurisdiction over adverse actions 

only applies to a preference eligible employee or other individual who “(I) is in a position of a supervisor or a management employee, or is an employee of the Postal Service 

engaged in personnel work in other than a purely nonconfidential clerical capacity; and (II) has completed 1 year of 

current continuous service in the same or similar positions.” 39 U.S.C. § 1005(a)(4)(A). In other words, the law

only permits certain Postal Service employees to appeal adverse actions, such as a reduction in grade or pay, to the 

Board.

The Board determined Mr. Ramirez has not established that he is an employee over whom it has jurisdiction. 

S. Appx. 11. Mr. Ramirez indicates he is not a preference 

eligible employee. S. Appx. 70 (answering “No” to whether 

he is entitled to veteran’s preference). He also does not allege that he is a supervisor, manager, or personnel worker. 

S. Appx. 45–50. The Board therefore properly determined 

that Mr. Ramirez does not qualify as an employee with a 

right to appeal to the Board under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1).

Mr. Ramirez also argues the Board has jurisdiction 

over the action pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3(c)(1)(i). Appellant’s Informal Br. at 5. Section 1201.3 is a regulation 

that implements the Board’s statutory jurisdiction. The 

specific regulation Mr. Ramirez cites explains that employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement must use 

the negotiated grievance procedures in the agreement to 

Case: 24-1643 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 09/12/2024
RAMIREZ v. MSPB 5

resolve any action that could be appealed to the Board, except for certain actions, including adverse actions under 5 

U.S.C. § 7512. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3(c)(1)(i). The Board’s jurisdiction under § 7512 is limited to individuals that qualify as an employee under § 7511(a)(1). Because Mr. 

Ramirez does not qualify as an employee as defined by the 

statute, 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3(c)(1)(i) does not apply. 

Mr. Ramirez does not otherwise allege he meets the requirements of an employee. While we appreciate Mr. 

Ramirez’s arguments that he was involuntarily demoted, 

the Board was correct that it “does not have jurisdiction to 

address all matters that are alleged to be incorrect or unfair.” S. Appx. 9. Accordingly, the Board properly dismissed Mr. Ramirez’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Ramirez’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s dismissal for lack of 

jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 24-1643 Document: 19 Page: 5 Filed: 09/12/2024