Court Opinion

ID: 9963122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 17:00:56.772492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:41.278609
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

ESMEREHILDO G. PARDO,                           DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         DA-0432-16-0114-I-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND                          DATE: April 23, 2024
  SECURITY,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Christina Borgobello , Esquire, Joshua N. Archer , Esquire, and Nathan M.
        Rymer , Esquire, Houston, Texas, for the appellant.

      Daniel N. Vara, Jr. , Esquire, Coral Springs, Florida, for the appellant.

      Judith Homich , Esquire, Tampa, Florida, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                           Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
                        Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
affirmed his demotion. For the reasons set forth below, the appellant’s petition

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   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good cause shown. 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.114(e), (g).

                                   BACKGROUND
      The appellant filed an appeal of the agency’s action demoting him for
unacceptable performance from the position of Supervisory Immigration Services
Officer, GS-1801-14, to the position of Immigration Services Officer III,
GS-1810-13, effective November 15, 2015.            Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1,
Tab 8 at 17-20, 151-56. After holding a hearing, the administrative judge issued
a March 8, 2017 initial decision in which she found that the agency established
the unacceptable performance charge and that the appellant failed to prove his
affirmative defenses of disparate treatment based on his race and sex, and
retaliation for prior equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity. IAF, Tab 24,
Initial Decision (ID) at 16-22.      The administrative judge also found that the
appellant failed to establish that the agency violated his due process rights and
affirmed the agency’s action.       ID at 22-25.     The initial decision became the
Board’s final decision when neither party filed a petition for review by
April 12, 2017. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113 (providing that initial decisions generally
become final 35 days after issuance absent a petition for review). 2
      On July 6, 2018, the appellant filed a petition for review.           Petition for
Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. Because he filed his petition for review more than
35 days after the issuance of the initial decision, the Clerk of the Board gave the
appellant notice of the Board’s requirement for him to file a motion to either
accept the filing as timely or waive the time limit for good cause. PFR File,
Tab 2. The appellant filed a Motion to Waive Time Limit for Good Cause, in
2
  The initial decision erroneously indicates a finality date of April 17, 2017, which is
40 days past the March 8, 2017 issuance date of the initial decision. ID at 1, 25.
Based on the date that the administrative judge issued the initial decision, it became the
Board’s final decision 35 days later, on April 12, 2017. ID at 1; see 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.113. The administrative judge’s error is of no legal consequence because the
difference of 5 days does not affect our finding, below, that the petition for review was
untimely filed. Karapinka v. Department of Energy, 6 M.S.P.R. 124, 127 (1981).
                                                                                 3

which he asserts that he had discovered new evidence during the litigation of
related Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints filed by
him and two coworkers. PFR File, Tab 5 at 3. He contended that the evidence,
which he set forth in his petition for review, was new, material, and established
good cause for the Board to reopen the appeal. Id. at 3-4. The agency filed a
response in opposition to the appellant’s petition for review and motion seeking a
waiver of untimeliness, and the appellant replied. PFR File, Tabs 6-7.

                DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
      The appellant bears the burden of proof with regard to timeliness, which he
must prove by preponderant evidence. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(B). A petition
for review must be filed within 35 days after the date of issuance of the initial
decision or, if the party shows that he received the initial decision more than
5 days after it was issued, within 30 days of his receipt. Williams v. Office of
Personnel Management, 109 M.S.P.R. 237, ¶ 7 (2008); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e).
      The appellant concedes that his petition for review is untimely. PFR File,
Tab 5 at 3. We agree. The record shows that the administrative judge issued his
initial decision on March 8, 2017. ID at 1. The appellant alleges that he received
the initial decision on March 21, 2017. PFR File, Tab 5 at 3. However, because
the appellant and one of his attorneys were e-filers, they are deemed to have
received the initial decision on the date of electronic submission, March 8, 2017.
IAF, Tab 3 at 2, Tabs 16, 25; see Palermo v. Department of the Navy,
120 M.S.P.R. 6, ¶ 3 (2014). Thus, the decision became final 35 days later, on
April 12, 2017, when neither party filed a petition for review.          5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.113. The appellant filed his petition for review on July 6, 2018, making it
451 days late. PFR File, Tab 1.
      Because the appellant’s explanation for the untimeliness of his petition for
review is not submitted in the form of an affidavit or a statement signed under
penalty of perjury, it is insufficient to establish the assertions it contains.
                                                                                   4

PFR File, Tab 1 at 2-13; see Wyeroski v. Department of Transportation,
106 M.S.P.R. 7, ¶ 8, aff’d per curiam, 253 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2007);
5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(f). An attorney who did not represent the appellant below,
but does on review, has provided an affidavit with the appellant’s motion for
waiver of the time limit. PFR File, Tab 5 at 6. However, we do not find this
affidavit sufficient.   The attorney does not assert that he has any personal
knowledge of the relevant facts.      Id.; see Anderson v. Government Printing
Office, 55 M.S.P.R. 548, 550 n.1 (1992) (finding that an affidavit that was not
based on personal knowledge could not support the facts alleged therein).
Further, the “facts” to which he attests are, for the most part, statements that the
appellant met his legal burden for waiving the time limit. PFR File, Tab 5 at 3-4.
For example, he states without explanation that the appellant “discovered new
evidence” based on information obtained during his EEOC litigation and that of
his coworkers. Id. at 3. As another example, he asserts that the “evidence could
not have reasonably been discovered” during the proceedings below. Id. at 4.
      Even assuming the appellant’s unsworn assertions were sufficient to satisfy
the Board’s regulations at 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(f), he has failed to establish good
cause for the filing delay in this case.    The discovery of new evidence may
establish good cause for the untimely filing of a petition for review if the
evidence was not readily available before the close of the record below and is of
sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different from that of the initial decision.
Wyeroski, 106 M.S.P.R. 7, ¶ 9. The appellant’s petition for review asserts that
new evidence establishes that the testimony of the individuals who proposed and
decided his demotion is not credible.      He offers the following evidence:     an
undated “brief rationale for finding of discrimination” that he asserts was
completed by the administrative judge in his EEOC case, reflecting the
administrative judge’s belief that agency witnesses, including the officials
proposing and deciding the appellant’s demotion, were not credible; a decision in
a coworker’s EEOC case finding, in pertinent part, that the proposing and
                                                                                   5

deciding officials retaliated against the coworker for his prior EEO activity; a
second coworker’s statements from his own Board appeal that the deciding
official retaliated against the appellant for his EEO activity; and excerpts of the
testimony of the proposing and deciding officials reflecting that they were
reassigned in January 2017. PFR File, Tab 1 at 14-52.        This evidence, which is
offered merely to impeach witnesses’ credibility, generally is not considered new
and material. Wyeroski, 106 M.S.P.R. 7, ¶ 9.
      Further, at the hearing in the instant appeal, the administrative judge
observed the testimony of the proposing and deciding official. She found that
they credibly denied that they were motivated by discrimination or retaliation
based on their demeanor.     ID at 21.    She also considered and discussed the
testimony of the appellant’s two coworkers in her initial decision. ID at 17-18.
We must give deference to the administrative judge’s credibility determinations
because they were based, explicitly and implicitly, on her observation of the
demeanor of witnesses testifying at a hearing. Haebe v. Department of Justice,
288 F.3d 1288, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The appellant’s “new” evidence is not a
“sufficiently sound” reason to disturb these findings.           See id.; Wyeroski,
106 M.S.P.R. 7, ¶¶ 3, 9 (determining that an appellant’s evidence of subsequent
misconduct by the individual who removed him was insufficient to overturn the
administrative judge’s post-hearing credibility findings).
      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 the appellant’s appeal of his November 15, 2015 demotion.
                                                                                        6

                           NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
      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 below 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:

3
  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.
                                                                                    7

                             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. 420 (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 to waiver of any
                                                                                  8

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).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
                                                                                      9

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. 4   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 for
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 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.

4
   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 by 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 competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                       10

      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:                       ______________________________
                                     Gina K. Grippando
                                     Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.