NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SHERRY MOORE, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent ______________________ 2018-1985 ______________________ Petition for review of an arbitrator's decision by John M. Donoghue. ______________________ Decided: July 9, 2019 ______________________ SHERRY MOORE, Stratford, NJ, pro se. DOUGLAS GLENN EDELSCHICK, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by JOSEPH H. HUNT, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR., FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR.; PATRICK DYSON, Office of the Chief Counsel, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security, Los An- geles, CA. ______________________ 2 MOORE v. DHS Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Petitioner Sherry Moore appeals an arbitration deci- sion, which upheld the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) removal of Ms. Moore from her position as a De- portation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs En- forcement (“ICE”). Resp’t’s Appx. 9; see Resp’t’s Appx. 2– 10 (Arbitrator Decision). 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 7121(f) and 7703(b)(1). We affirm. BACKGROUND From 1997 through 2016, Ms. Moore held various law enforcement positions at DHS. Resp’t’s Appx. 13. In 2007 and 2008, Ms. Moore was serving as an Immigration En- forcement Agent (“IEA”) when DHS initiated two fact-find- ing inquiries into whether she had failed to follow agency travel procedures on nine separate occasions, see Resp’t’s Appx. 61–66 (Inquiry Results on Travel Procedures), and whether she had failed to pay her Government-issued credit card, see Resp’t’s Appx. 32–34 (Inquiry Results on Credit Card). Following the two inquiries, DHS deter- mined that Ms. Moore failed to follow agency travel proce- dures, see Resp’t’s Appx. 62–66, and failed to pay her Government-issued credit card, see Resp’t’s Appx. 32–34. In 2009, DHS commenced a third fact-finding inquiry to determine whether Ms. Moore complied with agency proce- dures when she provided her firearm to someone who was not employed by the agency, see Resp’t’s Appx. 144–47 (In- quiry Results on Firearm). 1 Resp’t’s Appx. refers to the Department of Home- land Security’s Supplemental Appendix attached to its re- sponse brief. MOORE v. DHS 3 During the three investigations, DHS documented what they described as a “lack of candor” on two separate occasions. First, in June 2008, DHS asked Ms. Moore un- der oath “[w]hy is it that you failed to follow policy and pro- cedure relative to authorizations and vouchers incident to official travel.” Resp’t’s Appx. 91. Ms. Moore responded that “management . . . here had never shown [her] that it was ever important,” and “[t]hey never said a word about it until [she] was served [with] the [performance work plan].” Resp’t’s Appx. 91. Second, in February 2008, Ms. Moore told her supervisor that she paid her Government- issued credit card, see Resp’t’s Appx. 54, when the credit card balance remained unpaid through March 12, 2008, see Resp’t’s Appx. 41 (Credit Card Balance). From June 13, 2008 through August 18, 2014, Ms. Moore was out of the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals