Full Opinion

Case: 26-1767 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 11/10/2026 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ RASHAWN CIERS, Petitioner v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent ______________________ 2026-1767 ______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. CH-0353-24-0272-I-1. ______________________ Decided: November 10, 2026 ______________________ RASHAWN CIERS, Silver Spring, MD, 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 PROST, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Case: 26-1767 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 11/10/2026 2 CIERS v. MSPB RaShawn Ciers petitions for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) affirming the dismissal of his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND Mr. Ciers was hired by the U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) in 2000 as a mail processing clerk. S.A. 186. 1 In 2001, Mr. Ciers suffered a back injury and subsequently filed a claim with the Department of Labor for workers’ compensation benefits. S.A. 156. Mr. Ciers remained em- ployed by the USPS for several years as a totally disabled or limited-duty employee. S.A. 156. In 2007, the USPS Office of Inspector General began an investigation into Mr. Ciers’s representations as to his physical condition and work status. App’x 11. 2 That inves- tigation revealed that Mr. Ciers had claimed total disabil- ity for his postal duties while simultaneously maintaining full-time, private-sector employment. App’x 11. Thus, in 2009, the USPS issued Mr. Ciers a notice of removal for failure to report earned income to the Department of Labor and misrepresentation of his physical condition. S.A. 150– 54. Mr. Ciers filed a grievance as a response to the removal notice, and an arbitrator upheld his removal. App’x 12. The USPS issued a final notice of removal for cause in Au- gust 2010. S.A. 149, 155. Mr. Ciers also challenged his removal by filing a formal complaint of discrimination in March 2010, prior to the resolution of the arbitration. App’x 12. In that proceeding, the administrative judge granted summary judgment in favor of the USPS in Febru- ary 2012. App’x 12. In May 2011, for reasons not entirely clear on the rec- ord before us, a USPS official informed Mr. Ciers in a letter 1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed by the MSPB. 2 “App’x” refers to the appendix filed by Mr. Ciers. Case: 26-1767 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 11/10/2026 CIERS v. MSPB 3 that he was being restored to employment as a call center agent pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(d) based on 2010 doc- umentation received from the Office of Workers’ Compen- sation programs regarding his physical restrictions. S.A. 56. In June 2011, Mr. Ciers initiated training to work in that position. See App’x 84. At that time, the USPS was in the midst of processing his official employment. S.A. 251–56. In June 2011, the USPS official received an in- quiry regarding Mr. Ciers’s eligibility for restored employ- ment given his prior removal. S.A. 258. Upon receiving that inquiry, this official directed the USPS’s human re- sources department to stop Mr. Ciers’s new employment processing. S.A. 258; see S.A. 64–65. Mr. Ciers filed an MSPB appeal in March 2024. The administrative judge (“AJ”) issued an initial decision in January 2025 dismissing Mr. Ciers’s appeal for lack of ju- risdiction. The AJ concluded that Mr. Ciers’s 2010 removal was for cause “substantially unrelated to the injury,” thus precluding restoration rights, as opposed to removal be- cause of a compensable injury. App’x 15. Specifically, the AJ found that Mr. Ciers’s removal was “solely on the [USPS]’s determination, following an extensive [Office of Inspector General] investigation, that he had failed to re- port earned income to the Department of Labor and had misrepresented his physical condition, a conclusion that was ultimately affirmed in separate arbitration and EEOC decisions.” App’x 15. The AJ reasoned that, regardless of the letter indicating his reassignment to a call center agent position due to his ongoing discrimination claim, Mr. Ciers was no longer an employee with restoration rights due to his August 2010 removal for cause. App’x 15. Mr. Ciers filed an administrative petition for review of the initial decision. S.A. 261–313. In April 2026, the MSPB issued a final order denying the administrative pe- tition for review, affirming the initial decision, and adopt- ing it as its final order. App’x 1–9. Case: 26-1767 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 11/10/2026 4 CIERS v. MSPB Mr. Ciers petitioned for review. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). DISCUSSION “We generally must affirm a final decision of the [MSPB] unless it was (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) ob- tained without procedures required by law, rule or regula- tion having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” Chafin v. OPM, 177 F.4th 1183, 1185 (Fed. Cir. 2026); 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). “Whether the Board lacked jurisdiction is a legal question that we decide de novo.” Mouton-Miller v. MSPB, 985 F.3d 864, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “[A]lthough we may review freely the Board’s conclusion that it did not have jurisdiction over [Mr. Ci- ers’s] appeal, we are bound by the AJ’s factual determina- tions unless those findings are not supported by substantial evidence.” See Bolton v. MSPB, 154 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1998). To be entitled to restoration to employment following an on-the-job compensable injury, an employee must have been “separated or furloughed from an appointment with- out time limitation . . . as a result of a compensable in- jury[.]” 5 C.F.R. § 353.103(b). Under 5 C.F.R. § 353.304, an employee who suffers a compensable injury can appeal to the MSPB for failure to restore. Here, Mr. Ciers alleged partial recovery. See 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(d). To establish jurisdiction in a partial recovery case, a “petitioner must prove by preponderant evidence: (1) absence due to a com- pensable injury; (2) sufficient recovery from the injury to return to duty on a part time basis or in a less physically demanding position; (3) agency denial of a request for res- toration; and (4) denial of restoration rendered arbitrary and capricious by agency failure to perform its obligations under 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(d).” Bledsoe v. MSPB, 659 F.3d 1097, 1104 (Fed. Cir. 2011). However, “[a]n employee who has been removed for cause rather than a compensable in- jury is not entitled to restoration and cannot appeal to the Case: 26-1767 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 11/10/2026 CIERS v. MSPB 5 Board.” Minor v. MSPB, 819 F.2d 280, 282 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The question, therefore, is whether Mr. Ciers’s employ- ment was terminated as a result of a compensable injury or for cause substantially unrelated to that injury. The MSPB found the latter to be the answer. We agree. Before the MSPB and this court, Mr. Ciers has not ap- peared to dispute that he was removed from his mail pro- cessing clerk position in August 2010 for reasons substantially unrelated to his compensable injury. In- stead, Mr. Ciers argues both that the agency’s failure to formalize his appointment in 2011 was an improper denial of restoration, and that he was improperly denied restora- tion upon suffering a new injury subsequent to his appoint- ment to the call center position. Pet’r’s Informal Br. 4–16. As the final order explained, although the USPS’s 2011 letter indicated an intent to reemploy Mr. Ciers, the record is also clear that this post-removal employment was not formalized. See App’x 3. Because the USPS removed Mr. Ciers for cause substantially unrelated to his compensable injury, and because no completed post-removal appoint- ment occurred, Mr. Ciers is not an employee entitled to res- toration rights. See Minor, 819 F.2d at 282. The MSPB properly determined that Mr. Ciers failed to non-frivo- lously allege a jurisdictional basis for his claim for restora- tion and dismissed the appeal. CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Ciers’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.