Opinion ID: 724815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 6 The Board may waive the time limit for filing an appeal when good cause is shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(c) (1994). The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating such good cause. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(2)(ii) (1994). The decision regarding whether to waive the time limit for filing an appeal is within the discretion of the Board and this court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the Board. Mendoza v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 966 F.2d 650, 653 (Fed.Cir.1992) (in banc); Rowe v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 802 F.2d 434, 437 (Fed.Cir.1986). Thus, as Mrs. Wright concedes her appeal was untimely, our review in this case is limited to determining whether the Board's decision was arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law. See Mendoza, 966 F.2d at 653; Rowe, 802 F.2d at 437. 7 Applying this standard in view of her failure to argue legal error, we hold that the Board did not abuse its discretion because Peggy Wright has presented no excuse which the Board would have to accept as justifying her delay of over three years in filing her appeal. Peggy Wright admits she did not appeal within the allotted time because she had been unaware of any facts which could change the outcome. The only truly new fact presented by Peggy Wright, either to the AJ in her submission regarding timeliness, to the Board on her appeal of the AJ's dismissal or on appeal to this court, was her discovery of the Brush case while working in a library. 1 8 However, as we have recently held, the discovery of new legal arguments or the discovery of a precedential decision which may affect the outcome of an appeal does not, by itself, establish good cause for the untimely filing of a petition for review. Nelson v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 83 F.3d 1375, 1376 (Fed.Cir.1996). This rule applies even where, as here, the new decision issued after the due date of an appeal. See id. (Even if Fox had issued between ... the due date of Nelson's petition [and] ... the date he actually filed it, its discovery by the petitioner cannot constitute good cause for untimeliness ....); see also Romero, 66 M.S.P.R. at 111-12; Acree v. United States Postal Serv., 64 M.S.P.R. 566, 569 (1994). It is particularly applicable where the decision relied upon by a petitioner does not contain any hint that it was meant to be applied retroactively to alter the outcome of final decisions that were not timely appealed. Brush is such a decision.