Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
25-1056•Osvaldo R. Burgos v. Department of Homeland Security
25-1056Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit27.02.2025
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
OSVALDO R. BURGOS,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1056
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-0752-20-0067-I-1.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
The Department of Homeland Security moves to dis-
miss for lack of jurisdiction. Osvaldo R. Burgos submits his
opening brief and two motions to “continue with the case.”
ECF Nos. 16, 17.
Mr. Burgos seeks review of a final decision of the Merit
Systems Protection Board affirming his removal. Mr. Bur-
gos’s submissions before this court confirm that he asserted
Case: 25-1056 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 02/27/2025
-- 1 of 2 --
BURGOS v. DHS 2
a discrimination claim before the Board and does not wish
to abandon that claim. ECF No. 7 at 3; ECF No. 14 at 2.
Federal district courts, not this court, have jurisdiction
over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of
[5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2), which involve an
allegation of an action appealable to the Board and an al-
legation that a basis for the action was covered discrimina-
tion. Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017).
Here, Mr. Burgos continues to pursue the allegations he
made before the Board that his removal was the result of
covered discrimination, so jurisdiction to review the
Board’s decision lies in district court. Although the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security urges dismissal, we deem it ap-
propriate to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, to the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
where the employment action appears to have occurred,
which may address any issues concerning timeliness.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The motion is granted to the extent that the matter and
all case filings are transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1631.
February 27, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1056 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 02/27/2025
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.