Bedoya v. MSPB

Case: 26-1105 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 10/22/2026 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ADRIANA D. BEDOYA, Petitioner v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent ______________________ 2026-1105 ______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. SF-0752-25-1419-I-1. ______________________ Decided: October 22, 2026 ______________________ ADRIANA D. BEDOYA, Las Vegas, NV, pro se. STEPHEN FUNG, Office of the General Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH. ______________________ Before MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. Case: 26-1105 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 10/22/2026 2 BEDOYA v. MSPB PER CURIAM. Adriana D. Bedoya petitions for review of a Merit Sys- tems Protection Board (Board) decision dismissing her ap- peal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm. BACKGROUND Ms. Bedoya was employed as a mail handler for the United States Postal Service (USPS) in Las Vegas, Nevada for four years. S. Appx. 18. 1 In March 2025, the USPS re- moved her from employment due to her “failure to main- tain [an] assigned schedule.” S. Appx. 23. Ms. Bedoya appealed to the Board. S. Appx 18–23. The Board issued an order (1) informing Ms. Bedoya that, as a USPS em- ployee, she may not have the right to appeal her removal to the Board, and (2) directing her to file jurisdictional evi- dence and argument to show otherwise. S. Appx. 24–29. Ms. Bedoya’s response did not address the Board’s jurisdic- tion to hear her appeal. S. Appx. 56–61. The Board dis- missed for lack of jurisdiction because Ms. Bedoya failed to raise nonfrivolous allegations that she met the criteria of a USPS employee with the right to appeal to the Board. S. Appx. 1–14. Ms. Bedoya petitions for review. We have jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 2 1 “S. Appx.” refers to the appendix attached to Re- spondent’s brief. 2 In her Federal Circuit Rule 15(c) statement, Ms. Bedoya purports to seek review of a discrimination claim, which a federal district court, rather than this court, has authority to review. Dkt. No. 8; Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 422–23 (2017). The record, how- ever, does not show Ms. Bedoya raised such a claim before the Board. S. Appx. 18–23; S. Appx. 56–61; S. Appx. 73– 78. Because Ms. Bedoya cannot assert her discrimination Case: 26-1105 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 10/22/2026 BEDOYA v. MSPB 3 DISCUSSION The scope of our review in an appeal from a decision of the Board is limited. Generally, we must affirm the deci- sion unless it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of dis- cretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). Whether the Board has jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo. Bryant v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 878 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We review the Board’s fact findings un- derlying its jurisdictional analysis for substantial evidence. Id. The Board has jurisdiction over appeals by USPS em- ployees who (1) are “preference eligible” and have com- pleted one year of current continuous service, or (2) hold positions that are supervisory, managerial, or “engaged in personnel work in other than a purely nonconfidential cler- ical capacity,” and have completed one year of current con- tinuous service. 39 U.S.C. § 1005(a)(4)(A); 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B)(ii). To establish jurisdiction, “a petitioner must meet the threshold requirement of making non-frivo- lous allegations of fact which, if true, would be sufficient to establish the Board’s jurisdiction.” Bledsoe v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 659 F.3d 1097, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Board found Ms. Bedoya did not allege she fell within one of the limited categories of USPS employees with Board appeal rights. S. Appx. 4–5. While the Board provided Ms. Bedoya with notice on the issue, it found Ms. Bedoya did not allege or provide evidence showing she was preference eligible or that, as a mail handler, she was serving in a managerial or supervisory position or engaged claim for the first time on appeal, the proper forum for ju- dicial review is this court. See Bosley v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 162 F.3d 665, 668 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Perry, 582 U.S. at 422–23. Case: 26-1105 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 10/22/2026 4 BEDOYA v. MSPB in any non-clerical personnel work. Id.; S. Appx. 24–29; S. Appx. 56–61. Ms. Bedoya does not challenge these find- ings on appeal, which are supported by substantial evi- dence. S. Appx. 1–5; S. Appx. 18–23; S. Appx. 56–60; S. Appx. 73–78. Instead, Ms. Bedoya argues the USPS treated her unfairly due to her medical condition. Peti- tioner’s Br. 1–3. Her argument, however, does not address whether the Board has jurisdiction over her appeal. Be- cause Ms. Bedoya has not alleged or provided evidence of a basis for jurisdiction, we affirm the Board’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. CONCLUSION We have considered Ms. Bedoya’s remaining argu- ments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we af- firm. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.