Marcos Barabin v. Department of Homeland Security ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
MARCOS J. BARABIN, DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, DA-300A-16-0229-I-1
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND DATE: October 5, 2022
SECURITY,
Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Marcos J. Barabin, Laredo, Texas, pro se.
Benjamin D. Wolarsky and Jesus Ybarra, Laredo, Texas, 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 the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such
as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains
erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous
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A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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
interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to
the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of
the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or
involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of
the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite
the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5
of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 ( 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).
After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner
has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for
review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial
decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).
¶2 The appellant applied for the position of Supervisory Border Patrol Agent
(SBPA) under a merit promotion job announcement for vacancies at a number of
locations. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 115, 120-25. The agency failed to
include the appellant’s name on the certificates of eligible candidates. 2 Id.
at 25-95. In response to its error, the agency placed the appellant on a priority
placement list. Id. at 117. The appellant appealed the agency’s action,
contending that the agency mishandled his application and in the process violated
an employment practice under 5 C.F.R. part 300. IAF, Tab 1 at 5.
¶3 The agency concedes that the appellant received a score of 91 out of a
possible 100 based on his answers to the online occupational questionnaire and
that it erred by not including the appellant’s name on the certificates of eligible
candidates. IAF, Tab 5 at 7-8, 115, 118. The administrative judge found that the
appellant failed to establish that the agency’s actions constituted employment
practices. IAF, Tab 12, Initial Decision (ID) at 4-6. He also found that the
2
The agency was filling many vacancies under the announcement for SBPA positions.
The same agency error that affected the appellant affected at least 78 other eligible
applicants who were also incorrectly omitted from the certificates of eligibles for the
SBPA positions. IAF, Tab 5 at 118.
3
appellant failed to establish that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was
involved in the administration of the employment practice at issue. ID at 6-7. 3
¶4 In his petition for review, the appellant alleges that the administrative judge
misunderstood that the assignment of a rating/score is completed during the initial
phase of the promotion process and in his case was completed almost a year
before he applied for the SBPA vacancy. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1.
The appellant maintains that thus he was nonselected without considering his
knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) in violation of 5 C.F.R. § 300.103. 4 The
appellant also alleges that, contrary to the agency representation below, he was
not given proper priority consideration.
DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5 An applicant for employment who believes that an employment practice
applied to him by OPM violates a basic requirement in 5 C.F.R. § 300.103 is
entitled to appeal to the Board. 5 C.F.R. § 300.104(a); see Burroughs v.
Department of the Army, 116 M.S.P.R. 292, ¶ 15 (2011). The Board has
jurisdiction under 5 C.F.R. § 300.104(a) when two conditions are met: first, the
appeal must concern an employment practice that OPM is involved in
administering; and second, the appellant must make a nonfrivolous allegation that
the employment practice violated one of the “basic requirements” for employment
practices set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 300.103. Meeker v. Merit Systems Protection
Board, 319 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Mapstone v. Department of the
Interior, 110 M.S.P.R. 122, ¶ 7 (2008).
3
Because this appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the administrative judge
made no findings regarding whether the appeal was timely filed. ID at 1 n.1.
4
The administrative judge noted that the appellant alleged below that the hiring
decision for the SBPA position was not based on KSAs. ID at 4 -5. The administrative
judge addressed the appellant’s assertion as a challenge to the calculation of his score,
not as a total failure by the agency to consider KSAs in the application and selection
process. ID at 5.
4
¶6 The term “employment practices,” which includes the development and use
of examinations, qualification standards, tests, and other measurement
instruments, is to be construed broadly. Dowd v. United States, 713 F.2d 720,
723-24 (Fed. Cir. 1983); 5 C.F.R. § 300.101. An individual agency action or
decision that is not a rule or practice of some kind does not qualify as an
employment practice. Holse v. Department of Agriculture, 97 M.S.P.R. 624, ¶ 6
(2004). However, an agency’s misapplication of a valid OPM requirement may
constitute an employment practice. Holse, 97 M.S.P.R. 624, ¶ 6; see Prewitt v.
Merit Systems Protection Board, 133 F.3d 885, 887 (Fed. Cir. 1998). OPM need
not be immediately involved in the practice in question. Scott v. Department of
Justice, 105 M.S.P.R. 482, ¶ 10 (2007); see Prewitt, 133 F.3d at 888.
¶7 The appellant’s assertion that he was nonselected without considering his
KSAs in violation of 5 C.F.R. § 300.103 is unavailing. The Customs and Border
Patrol Merit Promotion Plan (the Plan) provides that candidates will be evaluated
for positions and receive a rating based on their job-related KSAs. IAF, Tab 4
at 31. The Plan provides further that this evaluation may be based on one or more
evaluation methods including answers to job-related questions, job-related
occupational tests, narrative responses to job KSAs or competency requirements,
structured interviews, or other approved assessment methods. Id. at 31-32. The
Plan provides a specific manner to determine each applicant’s rating relative to
each KSA. Id. at 40.
¶8 The appellant has not made a nonfrivolous allegation that the rating that he
received during the initial phase of the promotion process and/or based on his
answers to the online occupation questionnaire when he applied for the
specifically announced vacancies failed to include a determination of his KSAs
relative to the SBPA position as provided in the Plan. IAF, Tab 5 at 115. We
find that the agency’s failure to include the appellant on the certificate of
eligibles for the SBPA position was an irregularity in the selection process, rather
than an application of a specific rule, provision or policy, and thus does not
5
constitute an employment practice. See Prewitt, 133 F.3d at 887. The appellant
has failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that the agency’s action concerned an
employment practice that OPM is involved in administering and that it violated
one of the “basic requirements” for employment practices set forth in 5 C.F.R.
§ 300.103. See Meeker, 319 F.3d at 1373.
¶9 As to the appellant’s assertion that he was not given proper priority
consideration, the Board lacks jurisdiction. Absent Board jurisdiction based on
an appeal under 5 C.F.R. § 300.103, the Board lacks jurisdiction over a
nonselection, including a nonselection under priority consideration. 5 See
Brown v. Office of Personnel Management, 91 M.S.P.R. 314, ¶ 7 (2002) (stating
that the Board does not have jurisdiction to review an agency's decision not to
select a particular applicant for a position).
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 6
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
5
With his petition for review, the appellant submits new evidence, email
correspondence that he had with the agency regarding his nonselection under priority
placement. PFR File, Tab 1. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board will generally not
consider evidence submitted for the first time with the petition for review absent a
showing that it was unavailable before the record was closed despite the party ’s due
diligence. Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980). The emails
that the appellant submits are dated prior to the close of the record below , and the
appellant has failed to show that they were unavailable before the record closed. In any
event, the emails relate to the appellant’s nonselection under priority placement, a
matter over which the Board lacks jurisdiction.
6
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.
6
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:
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
7
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
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
8
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
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. 7 The court of appeals must receive your petition for
7
The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent juris diction 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.
9
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 Feder al
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.
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.