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N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
______________________
2024-2112
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. AT-0752-20-0160-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: 24-2112 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 05/20/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

ESTRADA v. MSPB 2
Wilson Estrada appeals a decision of the Merit Systems
Protection Board that determined it lacks jurisdiction to
hear Mr. Estrada’s case. We affirm.
I
Mr. Estrada was formerly employed as a Claims Spe-
cialist with the Social Security Administration’s Miami
South Field Office in Miami, Florida. S.A. 61.1 Based on
two charges of alleged misconduct, Mr. Estrada received
proposed suspensions and a Notice of Proposed Removal.
S.A. 8 n.1, 9. On June 20, 2018, the agency issued a deci-
sion to remove Mr. Estrada. S.A. 9. On or about Novem-
ber 1, 2019, Mr. Estrada filed an appeal with the Merit
Systems Protection Board. S.A. 25, 67–69.
On December 12, 2019, the agency filed a motion seek-
ing an Order from the Board directing Mr. Estrada “to clar-
ify exactly what issues the appellant is trying to bring
through this appeal, whether they fall within the Board's
jurisdiction, and whether they are timely.” S.A. 42. On Jan-
uary 6, 2020, the administrative judge granted the
agency’s motion, directing him to (1) “identify each issue he
[was] attempting to raise through [his] appeal,” (2) provide
argument and evidence concerning whether (and if so, how)
each issue was previously raised in any other forum, and
(3) “address whether any issue he [was] raising was timely
filed, and, if not, whether circumstances warrant[ed] waiv-
ing the filing deadline for the issue.” S.A. 42–43. Mr. Es-
trada responded with numerous pleadings in which he
appeared to indicate that he was appealing (1) his proposed
removal, (2) a proposed 15-day suspension, and (3) a pro-
posed 25-day suspension. See S.A. 28–41; see also S.A. 11.
Mr. Estrada did not address the timeliness of his appeals
in his pleadings. See S.A. 28–41; see also S.A. 12–13. The
1 References to S.A. refer to the Supplemental Ap-
pendix filed with the agency’s brief.
Case: 24-2112 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 05/20/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

ESTRADA v. MSPB 3
administrative judge docketed separate appeals to adjudi-
cate Mr. Estrada’s proposed removal and proposed suspen-
sions. S.A. 11. This case concerns the appeal of
Mr. Estrada’s proposed removal.2
On June 1, 2020, the administrative judge issued an
initial decision dismissing Mr. Estrada’s proposed removal
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. S.A. 12, 14. The administra-
tive judge found that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to
adverse actions set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 7512, which does not
include proposed actions. S.A. 12. The administrative
judge also concluded that even if the Board had jurisdiction
to consider Mr. Estrada’s appeal, it “must nonetheless be
dismissed as untimely without good cause.” S.A. 12.
Mr. Estrada filed an administrative petition for review
with the Board. S.A. 1, 27. On July 3, 2024, the Board is-
sued a Final Order denying the petition for review and af-
firming the initial decision. S.A. 1–7.
Mr. Estrada timely appealed the Board’s final decision.
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
2 Mr. Estrada separately appealed the Board’s final
decision dismissing his removal appeal alleging discrimi-
nation. On December 10, 2024, we transferred that matter
to the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of Florida because we concluded we did not have juris-
diction over that appeal. See Estrada v. MSPB, No. 24-
2111, 2024 WL 5055182 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2024) (order
transferring matter and all case filings to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1631).
Case: 24-2112 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 05/20/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

ESTRADA v. MSPB 4
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) ob-
tained without procedures required by law, rule, or regula-
tion 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 to
adjudicate a case. 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 cor-
rupt 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 re-
moval. 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 affirm the Board’s
decision that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Mr. Es-
trada’s proposed removal claim.
Because the Board correctly determined that it lacked
jurisdiction, we need not consider whether Mr. Estrada’s
Case: 24-2112 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 05/20/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

ESTRADA v. MSPB 5
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 properly concluded that it lacks ju-
risdiction to hear Mr. Estrada’s case, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
C OSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2112 Document: 23 Page: 5 Filed: 05/20/2025

-- 5 of 5 --