Court Opinion

ID: 9373051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:02:22.418447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:39.462440
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ENAMUL HAQE CHOWDHURY,                          DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          DC-3443-21-0635-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,                        DATE: January 23, 2023
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Enamul Haqe Chowdhury, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pro se.

           Kristin Delbridge, Esquire, and Michael Taylor, Esquire, Washington,
             D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed for lack of jurisdiction this alleged furlough appeal. For the reasons set

     1
        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
     significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
     but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
     required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
     precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                        2

     forth below, the appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed
     without good cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

                                       BACKGROUND
¶2           The appellant alleged below that on or around August 18, 2021, the agency
     furloughed him when it failed to act on his grant application. Initial Appeal File
     (IAF), Tab 1 at 5, 12, Tab 4 at 4-5.       The administrative judge dismissed the
     appeal for lack of jurisdiction in a September 27, 2021 initial decision.
     IAF, Tab 10, Initial Decision (ID) at 1, 5.       The initial decision notified the
     appellant of his further review rights, including the deadline for filing a petition
     for review—November 1, 2021. ID at 5.
¶3           On January 11, 2022, the appellant filed a petition for review. Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tab 10, Tab 11 at 1 & n.*. In his petition for review, the
     appellant did not address the timeliness of his submission.       PFR File, Tab 10.
     The agency responded to the petition and also moved to dismiss it as untimely
     filed. PFR File, Tab 12 at 9.
¶4           The Office of the Clerk of the Board informed the appellant that his petition
     was untimely filed because it was not postmarked or received in the Clerk’s
     office on or before November 1, 2021. PFR File, Tab 11 at 2. The Clerk’s Office
     further informed the appellant that the Board might dismiss his petition for
     review as untimely filed unless he filed a motion, including a statement, signed
     under penalty of perjury, or an affidavit, showing that his petition for review was
     timely filed or that good cause existed for the filing delay.        Id.   The Clerk
     attached a form “Motion to Accept Filing as Timely and/or to Ask the Board to
     Waive or Set Aside the Time Limit.” Id. at 8-9. The appellant did not respond to
     the Clerk’s notice, but he did file a reply to the agency’s response in which he
     appears to concede that his petition for review was untimely. PFR File, Tab 13
     at 7.
                                                                                       3

                         DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5         The Board’s regulations provide that a petition for review must be filed
     within 35 days after the date of issuance of the initial decision or, if the party
     shows he received the initial decision more than 5 days after it was issued, within
     30 days of his receipt of the decision.     5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e).     The initial
     decision was issued on September 27, 2021, and was sent to the appellant, who
     was a registered e-filer, the same day. ID at 1; IAF, Tab 1 at 2, Tab 11. Board
     documents served electronically on registered e-filers are deemed received on the
     date of the electronic submission. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(m)(2). Thus, as the initial
     decision sets forth, the appellant’s petition for review was due on, or before,
     November 1, 2021, and his January 11, 2022 petition for review was untimely
     filed by 71 days. ID at 5-6.
¶6         The Board will waive the filing deadline for a petition for review only upon
     a showing of good cause for the delay in filing. Palermo v. Department of the
     Navy, 120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 4 (2014); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g).         The party who
     submits an untimely petition for review has the burden of establishing good cause
     for the untimely filing by showing that he exercised due diligence or ordinary
     prudence under the circumstances of the case. Palermo, 120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 4.
     Here, the appellant filed his petition for review 71 days after the filing deadline,
     and despite the Clerk of the Board’s notice, he has not offered any explanation for
     the filing delay.
¶7         Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. This is
     the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the timeliness
     of the petition for review. The initial decision remains the final decision of the
     Board regarding appellant’s alleged furlough.
                                                                                         4

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By
statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such
review and the appropriate forum with which to file.               5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).
Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit
Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
appropriate for your situation and the rights described belo w do not represent a
statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their
jurisdiction.   If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should
immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all
filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time
limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.
      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

      (1) Judicial review in general. As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision.                 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).
      If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal   Circuit,   you    must   submit   your   petition   to    the   court    at   the
following address:

2
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                    5

                             U.S. Court of Appeals
                             for the Federal Circuit
                            717 Madison Place, N.W.
                            Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

      (2) Judicial   or   EEOC     review   of   cases     involving    a   claim   of
discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims—by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision.     5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017).              If you have a
representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before
you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days
after your representative receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling
condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and
                                                                                  6

to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
      Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective
websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.
      Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is:
                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                  P.O. Box 77960
                             Washington, D.C. 20013

      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or
by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:
                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                 131 M Street, N.E.
                                   Suite 5SW12G
                             Washington, D.C. 20507

      (3) Judicial     review   pursuant   to   the   Whistleblower    Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
                                                                                       7

If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section
2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i),
(B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction. 3    The court of appeals must receive your petition for
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.                5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).
      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals fo r
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
                               U.S. Court of Appeals
                               for the Federal Circuit
                              717 Madison Place, N.W.
                              Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the F ederal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The

3
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law b y the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of c ompetent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115 -195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                             8

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
      Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.

FOR THE BOARD:                                    /s/ for
                                          Jennifer Everling
                                          Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.