NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ DENNIS MOULTER, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondent ______________________ 2017-1958 ______________________ Petition for review of an arbitrator’s decision in No. 160603 by Jeanne M. Vonhof. ______________________ Decided: November 9, 2017 ______________________ DENNIS MOULTER, Norwalk, CT, pro se. ANTONIA RAMOS SOARES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represent- ed by CHAD A. READLER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., DEBORAH A. BYNUM. ______________________ 2 MOULTER v. DHS Before PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and CHEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Petitioner Dennis Moulter challenges an arbitration award dismissing his appeal of his removal by the De- partment of Homeland Security (“DHS” or “the agency”) as moot after the agency rescinded its removal action and finding that his retirement was not involuntary. In re Dep’t of Homeland Sec., U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t & Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., Local 527, Arb. No. 160603 (Feb. 20, 2017). Because we agree with the arbi- trator’s determination that the removal appeal is moot and that Mr. Moulter failed to make non-frivolous allega- tions that his retirement was involuntary, we affirm. BACKGROUND Before his retirement, Mr. Moulter worked as a depor- tation officer for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, within DHS. Mr. Moulter’s position in- volved “physically and mentally demanding and stressful” work. J.A. 46. Throughout 2015, Mr. Moulter faced numerous health issues. In May of that year, Mr. Moulter applied for leave donated to him from other employees. In that application, Mr. Moulter certified that he had a medical emergency involving “liver issues.” J.A. 63. Several days after applying for leave donations, Mr. Moulter was hospital- ized, and expected to remain in the hospital for five to seven days. He was released to return to work effective June 15, 2015. While Mr. Moulter’s health issues loomed, DHS had already begun processing the proposed removal of Mr. Moulter on three grounds: (1) neglect of duty; (2) falsifi- cation; and (3) conduct unbecoming a law enforcement officer. With respect to the neglect-of-duty ground, DHS alleged that Mr. Moulter improperly processed the depor- MOULTER v. DHS 3 tation of two aliens. With respect to falsification, DHS alleged that Mr. Moulter had falsified forms indicating that he had served aliens in detention with warnings for failure to depart, when he had not served those detainees. Mr. Moulter admitted to this conduct during an interview with the DHS Office of the Inspector General in June 2014. With respect to the conduct unbecoming an officer, DHS alleged that Mr. Moulter failed to report a bribery attempt. Mr. Moulter also acknowledged this conduct during the same interview with the Office of the Inspector General. DHS completed its notice of proposed removal on May 22, 2015, but it decided not to issue the notice until after Mr. Moulter returned from his sick leave. On October 4, 2015, Mr. Moulter initiated the process to apply for ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals