Ricardo R. Castillejos v. Merit Systems Protection Board

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RICARDO R. CASTILLEJOS,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1219
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. SF-0831-21-0145-M-1.
______________________
Decided: January 6, 2026
______________________
RICARDO R. CASTILLEJOS , Olongapo City, Philippines,
pro se.
ELIZABETH W. F LETCHER , Office of the General Coun-
sel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ALLISON
J ANE BOYLE, K ATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH .
______________________
Before D YK, P ROST , and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Case: 25-1219 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 01/06/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

CASTILLEJOS v. MSPB 2
P ER CURIAM .
Ricardo R. Castillejos petitions for review of a final de-
cision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dis-
missing his petition as untimely filed. S.A. 1–11.1 For the
following reasons, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
This case concerns Mr. Castillejos’s effort to obtain
Civil Service Retirement System benefits for his time as a
federal employee of the United States Department of the
Navy between 1974 and 1992. We previously issued an
opinion in this case remanding one of the Board’s decisions
because it improperly applied collateral estoppel. See Cas-
tillejos v. OPM, No. 22-1036, 2022 WL 2092864, at *2
(Fed. Cir. June 10, 2022).
On remand, the administrative judge (“AJ”) issued an
initial decision affirming the Office of Personnel Manage-
ment’s denial of Mr. Castillejos’s retirement benefits.
S.A. 3. Mr. Castillejos petitioned for review of the AJ’s in-
itial decision. S.A. 1. The Board dismissed his petition as
untimely filed without good cause shown. S.A. 2. Mr. Cas-
tillejos then petitioned this court for review.
D ISCUSSION
The Board argues that we should dismiss Mr. Cas-
tillejos’s petition for review to this court because it was
filed more than sixty days after the Board issued its final
decision. See Board’s Informal Br. 5–9. We agree.
This court has jurisdiction to review “an appeal from a
final order or final decision of the [Board], pursuant to sec-
tions 7703(b)(1) and 7703(d) of title 5.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(9). Under § 7703(b)(1), “any petition for review
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix in-
cluded with the Board’s informal responsive brief.
Case: 25-1219 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 01/06/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

CASTILLEJOS v. MSPB 3
shall be filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice
of the final order or decision of the Board.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). It also “requires actual
receipt by the court, not just timely mailing.” Fedora v.
MSPB, 848 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Fed. Cir. R.
25(c)(2).
The Board issued its final decision on August 27, 2024.
S.A. 1. Under § 7703(b)(1)(A), Mr. Castillejos’s petition for
review was due on October 28, 2024. We received his peti-
tion on November 18, 2024. ECF No. 1-2 at 1. That is past
the sixty-day deadline required by § 7703(b)(1)(A).
Although the Board acknowledges that the timing re-
quirement of § 7703(b)(1) “is not jurisdictional,” Board’s In-
formal Br. 6 (quoting Harrow v. Dep’t of Def., 601 U.S. 480,
482 (2024)), it maintains that the statute does not permit
equitable tolling, id. at 6–9. The Supreme Court in Harrow
declined to address whether, even if non-jurisdictional, the
statute permits equitable tolling. 601 U.S. at 489. We ex-
press no opinion on this issue, nor do we need to address it
to resolve this case. Here, Mr. Castillejos only argues the
merits of his case and fails to mention anything about the
timeliness of his petition to this court. Thus, because the
petition for review is untimely, and because Mr. Castillejos
has supplied no basis for equitable tolling even if the stat-
ute permitted as much, we dismiss.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Castillejos’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1219 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 01/06/2026

-- 3 of 3 --