Opinion

Gibao Kani-Goba v. Department of Health and Human Services

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Apr 15, 2026
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

GIBAO EMMANUEL KANI-GOBA, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, DC-0752-22-0397-I-2

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DATE: April 15, 2026

HUMAN SERVICES,

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Gibao Emmanuel Kani-Goba , Gaithersburg, Maryland, pro se.

Susan M. Andorfer and LerVal Marcelline Elva , Washington, D.C., for the

agency.

BEFORE

Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman

James J. Woodruff II, Member

FINAL ORDER

The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

sustained the agency’s chapter 75 removal action based on charges of

unacceptable performance and inappropriate conduct. Generally, we grant

petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision

contains erroneous findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add

significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,

but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not

required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a

precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board

as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).

erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of

the law to the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either

the course of the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required

procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the

outcome of the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available

that, despite the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record

closed. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115

(5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we

conclude that the petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115

for granting the petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review.

Except as expressly MODIFIED to find that the agency established the requisite

nexus, we AFFIRM the initial decision.

On petition for review, the appellant disagrees with the administrative

judge’s decision to sustain the agency’s removal action. Kani Goba v.

Department of Health and Human Services, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-22-

0397-I-2, Petition for Review (I-2 PFR) File, Tab 1. Specifically, he argues that

the administrative judge made erroneous findings of facts, misapplied the law,

and exhibited bias and abused her discretion in finding that the agency met its

burden to prove its charges sustaining his removal. I-2 PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-17.

We are not persuaded by his arguments. The administrative judge examined the

witness’ testimony and the record evidence and made reasoned credibility

findings in sustaining the agency’s charges. Kani Goba v. Department of Health

and Human Services, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-22-0397-I-2, Refiled Appeal

File (RAF), Tab 30, Initial Decision (I-2 ID) at 2-5. Such testimony and evidence

included the appellant’s failure to contest that he made the errors underlying

11 of the 13 specifications of the unacceptable performance charge, as well as his

admission to making a comment to the effect of chopping off someone’s head, as

alleged in the charge of inappropriate conduct. I-2 ID at 3, 5. The appellant’s

arguments on review constitute mere disagreement with the administrative

judge’s well-reasoned findings and do not establish that she erred in sustaining

the agency’s charges. Yang v. U.S. Postal Service, 115 M.S.P.R. 112, ¶ 12 (2010)

(finding that arguments that constitute mere disagreement with the initial decision

do not provide a basis to grant the petition for review); Haebe v. Department of

Justice, 288 F.3d 1288, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (stating that the Board must defer

to an administrative judge’s credibility determinations when they are based,

explicitly or implicitly, on observing the demeanor of witnesses testifying at a

hearing); Crosby v. U.S. Postal Service, 74 M.S.P.R. 98, 106 (1997) (finding no

reason to disturb the administrative judge’s findings when she considered the

evidence as a whole, drew appropriate inferences, and made reasoned

conclusions). Accordingly, we discern no basis to disturb the administrative

judge’s finding that the agency proved its charges.

In addition to the requirement that the agency prove its charges, it also

must prove that there is a nexus, i.e., a clear and direct relationship between the

articulated grounds for an adverse action and either the appellant’s ability to

accomplish his duties satisfactorily or some other legitimate Government interest.

Chin v. Department of Defense, 2022 MSPB 34, ¶ 22. The initial decision does

not explicitly address the nexus requirement, and the parties have not raised it on

review. Nonetheless, we modify the decision accordingly. We find that the

agency met its nexus requirement because the appellant’s misconduct took place

at work. See Parker v. U.S. Postal Service, 819 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987)

(finding sufficient nexus between an employee’s conduct and the efficiency of the

service when the conduct occurred in part at work). Additionally, his

unacceptable performance negatively impacted management’s confidence in the

appellant’s job performance and disrupted the agency’s mission. See Canada v.

Department of Homeland Security, 113 M.S.P.R. 509, ¶ 11 (2010) (explaining

that an agency can establish a nexus by demonstrating that an employee’s conduct

has affected their job performance or that of coworkers, undermined

management’s trust in the employee, or interfered with the agency’s mission).

Thus, any error by the administrative judge in addressing the issue was harmless.

See Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (finding

that an adjudicatory error that is not prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights

provides no basis for reversal of an initial decision).

In his petition for review, the appellant also alleges that the administrative

judge abused her discretion and exhibited bias in “siding with the agency.” I-2

PFR File, Tab 1 at 4-13. For example, he alleges that, in adjudicating his appeal,

the administrative judge did not consider the “contentious relationship” between

him and his supervisor. Id. at 4-5, 11, 16. There is no support for the appellant’s

argument that the administrative judge was biased against him or favored the

agency. The Board has consistently held that, in making a claim of bias against

an administrative judge, the appellant must overcome the presumption of honesty

and integrity that accompanies all administrative adjudicators. Washington v.

Department of the Interior, 81 M.S.P.R. 101, ¶ 7 (1999) (citing In re King,

1 M.S.P.R. 146, 151 (1979)). An administrative judge’s conduct during the

course of a Board proceeding warrants a new adjudication only if the

administrative judge’s comments or actions indicate a deep-seated favoritism or

antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible. Simpkins v. Office of

Personnel Management, 113 M.S.P.R. 411, ¶ 5 (2010) (quoting Bieber v.

Department of the Army, 287 F.3d 1358, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). The

appellant has not provided any evidence to support his bare allegations of bias,

and so his claims do not meet this rigorous standard. The mere fact that an

administrative judge ultimately ruled in favor of the agency does not establish

bias. Hayden v. U.S. Postal Service, 15 M.S.P.R. 296, 300 (1983), aff’d,

758 F.2d 668 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Table); Weaver v. Department of the Navy,

2 M.S.P.R. 129, 133 (1980).

Similarly, we find the appellant’s argument that the administrative judge’s

failure to review a document with over 1700 pages evidenced bias and an abuse

of discretion unavailing. I-2 PFR File, Tab 1 at 6. An administrative judge has

wide discretion to control the proceedings before her, and the Board will not infer

bias based on an administrative judge’s case-related rulings. See Vaughn v.

Department of the Treasury, 119 M.S.P.R. 605, ¶ 18 (2013) (stating that the

Board will not infer bias based on an administrative judge’s case-related rulings);

King v. Department of the Army, 84 M.S.P.R. 235, ¶ 6 (1999) (explaining that an

administrative judge’s case-related rulings, even if erroneous, are insufficient to

establish bias warranting recusal and that claims of perceived adjudicatory errors

do not provide a basis for recusal). Here, the administrative judge did not review

the document because the appellant did not upload it to the case file as instructed.

RAF, Tab 19 at 1, Tab 22 at 6-42. Instead, he submitted a collection of separate

documents combined into one, with his added commentary. RAF, Tab 22 at 6-42.

Consequently, the administrative judge concluded that it could not be verified and

had little evidentiary value. RAF, Tab 24 at 2.

Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2

The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the

Board’s final decision in this matter. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113. You may obtain

review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By statute, the nature of

your claims determines the time limit for seeking such review and the appropriate

forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b). Although we offer the following

summary of available appeal rights, the Merit Systems Protection Board does not

provide legal advice on which option is most appropriate for your situation and

the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule

regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of

this final decision, you should immediately review the law applicable to your

claims and carefully follow all filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file

Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated

the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the

Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.

within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your

chosen forum.

Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review

below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions

about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you

should contact that forum for more information.

(1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking

judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court

within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision.

5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A).

If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following

address:

U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20439

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular

relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is

contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at

http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation

for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that

any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of

discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you

were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action

was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain

judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination

claims —by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you

receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems

Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file

with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative

receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on

race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be

entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any

requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.

Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective

websites, which can be accessed through the link below:

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .

Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding

all other issues . 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the

EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive

this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file

with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives

this decision.

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the

address of the EEOC is:

Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, D.C. 20013

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or

by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:

Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

131 M Street, N.E.

Suite 5SW12G

Washington, D.C. 20507

(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection

Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised

claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or

other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).

If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s

disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in

section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or

2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial

review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court

of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 3 The court of appeals must receive your

petition for review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.

5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B).

The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain

whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on

December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on

July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of

MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.

The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,

132 Stat. 1510.

If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following