Wilson H. Estrada v. Merit Systems Protection Board

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
WILSON H. ESTRADA,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2024-2113
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. AT-0752-20-0563-I-1.
______________________
Decided: May 20, 2025
______________________
WILSON H. ESTRADA, Miami, FL, pro se.
CONSTANCE E. T RAVANTY , Office of the General Coun-
sel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ALLISON
J ANE BOYLE, K ATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH .
______________________
Before H UGHES , BRYSON, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 24-2113 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 05/20/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

ESTRADA v. MSPB 2
Wilson Estrada appeals a decision of the Merit Systems
Protection Board that determined it lacked jurisdiction to
hear Mr. Estrada’s case. We affirm.
I
In our companion opinion issued concurrently with this
opinion, Estrada v. MSPB (Estrada I), No. 24-2112, slip op.
at 5 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2025), we affirmed the Board’s de-
cision that it lacked subject matter to consider Mr. Es-
trada’s proposed removal claim. As explained in Estrada I,
“[t]he administrative judge docketed separate appeals to
adjudicate Mr. Estrada’s proposed removal and proposed
suspensions.” Id. at 2–3. This case concerns the appeal of
Mr. Estrada’s proposed 15-day suspension.
On June 11, 2020, the administrative judge issued an
order explaining that the Board generally lacks jurisdiction
over proposed actions, but that if Mr. Estrada was attempt-
ing to appeal the suspension decision, the Board may have
jurisdiction. S.A. 80–81.1 The administrative judge also in-
formed Mr. Estrada that his appeal appeared to be un-
timely filed. S.A. 77. The order required Mr. Estrada to file,
within 20 days, a response clarifying the nature of his ap-
peal, whether the Board had jurisdiction, and whether his
appeal was timely. S.A. 77–83. On July 14, 2020, Mr. Es-
trada filed three untimely responses, see S.A. 25–50;
S.A. 51–61; S.A. 62–75, which the administrative judge did
not consider because he concluded that Mr. Estrada did not
show good cause for the delay in filing, S.A. 10–11.
On July 14, 2020, the administrative judge issued an
initial decision dismissing Mr. Estrada’s proposed 15-day
suspension appeal as untimely and for lack of jurisdiction.
S.A. 8–9. Regarding timeliness, the administrative judge
noted that the proposed suspension was issued on
1 References to S.A. refer to the Supplemental Ap-
pendix filed with the agency’s brief.
Case: 24-2113 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 05/20/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

ESTRADA v. MSPB 3
February 23, 2018, but Mr. Estrada “did not provide notice
of his intention to appeal this matter to the Board until
nearly two years later on January 15, 2020.” S.A. 11. The
administrative judge noted that Mr. Estrada “did not re-
spond to the Board’s Order directing him to explain this
lengthy delay, and [found] no evidence in the record that
the delay was justified by good cause.” S.A. 11. The admin-
istrative judge dismissed the appeal based on untimely fil-
ing and determined that “[e]ven if the appeal was not
dismissed based on untimely filing without good cause, the
appeal would nonetheless be dismissed for lack of jurisdic-
tion.” S.A. 11.
Mr. Estrada timely filed an administrative petition for
review with the Board. S.A. 1, 24. On July 3, 2024, the
Board issued a Final Order denying the petition for review
and affirming the administrative judge’s initial decision.
S.A. 1–7. This timely appeal of the Board’s final decision
followed. We have jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
II
We must “hold unlawful and set aside any agency . . .
findings” that are “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of dis-
cretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) ob-
tained without procedures required by law, rule, or
regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by
substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). We review de
novo the Board’s determination that it lacks jurisdiction.
Forest v. MSPB, 47 F.3d 409, 410 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
III
On appeal, it is unclear what challenges Mr. Estrada
raises with respect to the Board’s final determination.
Mr. Estrada does not argue that the administrative judge
made any error of fact or law in dismissing his proposed
removal appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Instead, Mr. Es-
trada argues that the “MSPB never cared but played a
Case: 24-2113 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 05/20/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

ESTRADA v. MSPB 4
corrupt game with [his] case,” that he was mistreated and
subjected to a “toxic environment” at the agency, and that
the “MSPB is defending the SSA corruption.” Pet. Br. 2.
Thus, he does not appear to challenge the Board’s determi-
nation that it lacked jurisdiction. But even if he had chal-
lenged the Board’s determination, the Board properly
concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to hear Mr. Estrada’s
case.
Under 5 U.S.C. § 7512, adverse actions appealable to
the Board include “(1) a removal; (2) a suspension for more
than 14 days; (3) a reduction in grade; (4) a reduction in
pay; and (5) a furlough of 30 days or less.” Here, Mr. Es-
trada appears to have attempted to appeal his proposed 15-
day suspension. But “[b]ecause mere proposals to remove
are not listed in § 7512, they are not appealable adverse
actions in themselves and the Board has no jurisdiction
over them.” Cruz v. Dep’t of Navy, 934 F.2d 1240, 1243
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citation omitted). Thus, we af-
firm the Board’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction to con-
sider Mr. Estrada’s proposed 15-day suspension claim.
Because the Board correctly determined that it lacked
jurisdiction, we need not consider whether Mr. Estrada’s
claim was timely. See Geiren v. MSPB, 476 F. App’x 256,
259 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“When it is clear that the Board lacks
jurisdiction, the Board may dismiss an appeal for lack of
jurisdiction without deciding whether the appeal was
timely filed.”).
IV
Because the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr. Es-
trada’s case, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
C OSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2113 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 05/20/2025

-- 4 of 4 --