Court Opinion

ID: 8482485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-09 15:00:42.802393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:49:39.535752
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-2221    Document: 46    Page: 1    Filed: 11/09/2022

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                NAFISEH T. MOGHADAM,
                       Petitioner

                            v.

      DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
                   Respondent
             ______________________

                        2021-2221
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. SF-1221-19-0198-W-2.
                 ______________________

                Decided: November 9, 2022
                 ______________________

    MATTHEW ROSTON, Roston Law Group, Beverly Hills,
 CA, argued for petitioner.

     DOUGLAS GLENN EDELSCHICK, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also repre-
 sented by REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M.
 BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; MAUREEN NEY, Office of
 General Counsel, United States Department of Veteran Af-
 fairs, Los Angeles, CA.
                  ______________________
Case: 21-2221    Document: 46      Page: 2    Filed: 11/09/2022

 2                                           MOGHADAM   v. DVA

     Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 REYNA, Circuit Judge.
     Nafiseh T. Moghadam appeals a Merit Systems Protec-
 tion Board (“Board”) decision that denied her Whistle-
 blower Protection Act claims. Based on the record before
 us, we affirm the decision of the Board.
     On appeal, Ms. Moghadam asserts that “she is entitled
 under both the [Whistleblower Protection Act] and the
 [Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act] to re-
 quest . . . attorney fees.” Reply Br. 6. We do not address
 this issue because it was not decided below and has not
 been properly raised before this court.
                         AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.