Robinson v. MSPB

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: February 5, 2026
• Docket: 25-1995
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-1995 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TAFT ROBINSON, Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent ______________________

2025-1995 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. SF-3443-25-1467-I-1. ______________________

Decided: February 5, 2026 ______________________

TAFT ROBINSON, Stevenson Ranch, CA, pro se.

KELLY WINSHIP, Office of the General Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH. ______________________

Before PROST, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Case: 25-1995 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2026

Taft Robinson petitions for review of the July 11, 2025 decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”), S.A. 1–13,1 dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND Mr. Robinson is a Census Field Representative in the U.S. Census Bureau (“agency”) in the Los Angeles, Califor- nia Regional Office. S.A. 17. On March 18, 2025, the agency announced to all staff that Voluntary Early Re- quirement Authority (“VERA”) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (“VSIP”) would be available to eligible employees. S.A. 26–27. The agency stated that employees retiring under VERA must separate “no later than May 3, 2025.” S.A. 26. Mr. Robinson was interested in separating with VSIP and submitted an application, which the agency received April 14, 2025. S.A. 2; Pet’r’s Informal Br. 2. However, Mr. Robinson did not receive a response from the agency by the May 3 deadline and therefore he did not resign before then. S.A. 18. He alleges that the agency’s failure to issue a “VSIP Approval Letter” by May 3 disqualified him from receiving VSIP. Id. Mr. Robinson filed his appeal with the Board on June 14, 2025. S.A. 16. The administrative judge (“AJ”) issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, which became the final decision of the Board on August 15, 2025. S.A. 5, 16. Mr. Robinson’s petition to this court, although filed prematurely, has since ripened into an effective timely appeal. See Jones v. HHS, 834 F.3d 1361, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We thus have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix in- cluded with the government’s informal brief. Case: 25-1995 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 02/05/2026

ROBINSON v. MSPB 3

DISCUSSION We decide de novo whether the Board properly dis- missed Mr. Robinson’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Mou- ton-Miller v. MSPB, 985 F.3d 864, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “The Board does not have plenary appellate jurisdiction over personnel actions.” Id. at 869. Rather, for the Board to have jurisdiction, the underlying personnel action must be “appealable to the Board under [a] law, rule, or regula- tion.” 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a). Mr. Robinson bears the burden of establishing the Board’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Mouton-Miller, 985 F.3d at 869. As relevant here, the Board’s authority to hear appeals from adverse agency actions is limited by statute to: “(1) a removal; (2) a suspension for more than 14 days; (3) a re- duction in grade; (4) a reduction in pay; and (5) a furlough of 30 days or less.” 5 U.S.C. § 7512. Before us, Mr. Robinson’s principal argument appears to be that the agency should not have used the fact that he worked past the May 3, 2025 deadline to deny his VSIP ap- plication.2 Rather, he argues the agency should have con- sidered other factors, like his tenure and veterans’ preference. Pet’r’s Informal Br. 2. However, even accept- ing Mr. Robinson’s argument as to VSIP eligibility, he does not allege that he was actually removed or separated from his position. Indeed, Mr. Robinson acknowledges that he continued to “keep working.” Memorandum in Lieu of Oral Argument at 2 (Jan. 5, 2026), ECF No. 42. The AJ recog- nized that despite checking the box for “Separation, demo- tion or furlough for more than 30 days by reduction in force (RIF)” in his submission to the Board, S.A. 18,

2 Mr. Robinson does not appear to challenge the agency’s use of the May 3 deadline for both VERA and VSIP. Pet’r’s Informal Br. 2 (acknowledging “we had to be separated/quit from the Census Bureau by May 3, 2025”). Case: 25-1995 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 02/05/2026

Mr. Robinson’s appeal does not allege the agency took any such action. S.A. 4 n.1. Thus, Mr. Robinson’s appeal does not involve a “removal,” or any other of the enumerated personnel actions under § 7512. Moreover, Mr. Robinson has not cited to any provision of law governing VSIP that would grant the Board jurisdic- tion over his alleged disqualification. Mr. Robinson refer- ences “Public Law 107-296 and [5] U.S.C. § 3522,” which relates to agency plans for implementing VSIP. Pet’r’s In- formal Br. 2. However, even those provisions relevant to a petitioner’s eligibility for VSIP do not give the petitioner appeal rights at the Board to challenge the denial or dis- qualification from receiving VSIP. Mr. Robinson points to no persuasive authority supporting his argument that the circumstances here confer Board jurisdiction. CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Robinson’s remaining argu- ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea- sons, we affirm. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.