UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD AMATULLAH R. MUHAMMAD, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, AT-0752-16-0777-I-1 v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND DATE: May 31, 2023 SECURITY, Agency. THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1 Shaun Yancey, Esquire, Atlanta, Georgia, for the appellant. Kenneth William, Atlanta, Georgia, 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 her removal from the agency for improper conduct and lack of candor and found that she did not meet her burden of proving the affirmative defense of race discrimination. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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 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 t o 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). ¶2 The appellant worked for the agency as a GS-11 Immigration Services Officer. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 1, Tab 6 at 33. In this position, the appellant was responsible for granting or denying application s and petitions for immigration benefits, some decisions which determined whether immigrants were permitted to legally remain in the country. IAF, Tab 9 at 16. ¶3 Effective July 29, 2016, the agency removed the appellant for three specifications of improper conduct stemming from an April 17, 2014 lu nchtime incident at a Quiznos and three specifications of lack of candor relating to the appellant’s sworn interview with the agency’s Office of Security and Integrity (OSI) regarding the April 17, 2014 incident. IAF, Tab 6 at 33, 35-39. ¶4 The appellant appealed her removal to the Board and withdrew her hearing request. IAF, Tab 1, Tab 28 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals