Marguerite Sandoval, Petitioner, v. Department of the Treasury, Respondent, 92 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
Annotate this CaseBefore ARCHER, Chief Judge, NIES, Senior Circuit Judge, and RADER, Circuit Judge.
ON MOTION
ARCHER, Chief Judge.
ORDER
On May 31, 1996, we ordered Marguerite Sandoval to show cause within 10 days why her petition for review should not be dismissed as untimely. Sandoval submits a response.
On January 18, 1996, the Merit Systems Protection Board issued its decision in Sandoval's case. The Board's order indicates that a copy of the decision was sent by certified mail to Sandoval on that same day. On February 28, 1996, 41 days after the decision was mailed to Sandoval, Sandoval filed her petition for review. A petition for review of a Board decision must be filed within 30 days after the date the petitioner receives notice of the decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703.
In her response, Sandoval states only that she has had difficulty in obtaining representation and does not address the timeliness of the petition for review. Sandoval requests a general extension of time from the court. However, a court of appeals may not enlarge the time for filing a petition for review. We have no authority to waive this statutorily imposed requirement. Monzo v. Department of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (30-day period is mandatory, statutory, and jurisdictional).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Sandoval's petition for review is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
