Vurnun Edwurd Jaxun v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission; Asarco, LLC

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VURNUN EDWURD JAXUN,
Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND
HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION;
ASARCO, LLC,
Respondents.
No. 09-72459
FMSHRC No. WEST 2007-811-
DM
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Vurnun Edwurd Jaxun petitions pro se for review of the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Review Commission’s decision dismissing his discrimination
complaint under section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
FILED
JAN 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-72459 2
We have jurisdiction under 30 U.S.C. § 816(a). We review for substantial
evidence the Administrative Law Judge’s factual findings, Miller Mining Co. v.
Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 713 F.2d 487, 490 (9th Cir. 1983),
and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that
ASARCO, LLC terminated Jaxun because of his insubordinate behavior and not
because of his safety complaints. Accordingly, Jaxun’s discrimination complaint
was properly dismissed. See 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(1).
We do not consider Jaxun’s contentions concerning “fraudulent inducement
of employment” and “interference with the exercising of the statutory rights of a
miner” because these claims were not raised below. See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of
Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --