Case Name: Vurnun Edwurd JAXUN, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION; Asarco, LLC, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-07
Citations: 408 F. App'x 70
Docket Number: No. 09-72459
Parties: Vurnun Edwurd JAXUN, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION; Asarco, LLC, Respondents.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 408
Pages: 70–71

Head Matter:
Vurnun Edwurd JAXUN, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION; Asarco, LLC, Respondents.
No. 09-72459.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
Filed Jan. 7, 2011.
Vumun Edwurd Jaxun, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
Michael Alan McCord, General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission, Washington, DC, Mark Noah Savit, Patton Boggs, LLP, Denver, CO, for Respondents.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Vurnun Edwurd Jaxun petitions pro se for review of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission's decision dismissing his discrimination complaint under section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. We have jurisdiction under 30 U.S.C. § 816(a). We review for substantial evidence the Administrative Law Judge's factual findings, Miller Mining Co. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 713 F.2d 487, 490 (9th Cir.1983), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge's finding that ASARCO, LLC terminated Jaxun because of his insubordinate behavior and not because of his safety complaints. Accordingly, Jaxun's discrimination complaint was properly dismissed. See 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(1).
We do not consider Jaxun's contentions concerning "fraudulent inducement of employment" and "interference with the exercising of the statutory rights of a miner" because these claims were not raised below. See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Conocophillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir.2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.