UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD MARK WEIDHASE, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, SF-0752-17-0153-I-1 v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND DATE: July 17, 2023 SECURITY, Agency. THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1 Lawrence Berger, Esquire, Glen Cove, New York, for the appellant. Jennifer R. Hong, Esquire, Los Angeles, California, for the agency. Stanislaus A. Gonsalves, Esquire, Oak Brook Terrace, Illinois, for the agency. BEFORE Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Member FINAL ORDER ¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which sustained the removal action. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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 in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous 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). BACKGROUND ¶2 Prior to his removal, the appellant was a Criminal Investigator, GS -14, with the agency’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division in the Los Angeles Field Office. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 1. On August 31, 2014, he was involved in a traffic collision when the driver of another vehicle rear-ended his personal vehicle. Hearing Transcript (HT) at 100:16-101:8 (testimony of the appellant). Following the collision, the appellant observed that the suspect was Hispanic, spoke limited English, had a Mexican voter identification card in his wallet, and seemed reluctant to involve law enforcement. HT at 102:2-103:2. The appellant asked the suspect where he was from and the suspect responded “de alla” (which translates to “from over there”). HT at 103:23-104:12. The appellant obtained his agency law enforcement credentials from his vehicle and identified himself as a law enforcement officer. HT at 104:24-105:5. The suspect immediately took flight and the appellant pursued and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals