Mayowa Bonojo v. Department of Homeland Security

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MAYOWA BONOJO,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1050
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. NY-0752-20-0056-I-3.
______________________
Decided: March 27, 2026
______________________
HOWARD BRANDON ZAKAI, Granger & Associates LLC,
New York, NY, argued for petitioner. Also represented by
RAYMOND R. G RANGER.
REBECCA T AYLOR MITCHELL , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also repre-
sented by ELIZABETH MARIE H OSFORD, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Case: 25-1050 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2026

-- 1 of 15 --

BONOJO v. DHS 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CHEN, Circuit Judge, and
K LEEH , Chief District Judge.1
K LEEH , Chief District Judge.
Mayowa Bonojo appeals from a decision of the Merit
Systems Protection Board (“the Board”). For the following
reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The Petitioner, Mayowa Bonojo (“Bonojo”), began work-
ing for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) in 2009. Appx. 29. He became a Deportation Of-
ficer (“DO”) in 2016. Appx. 829. On Sunday, February 19,
2017, Bonojo was not scheduled to be on duty but had been
advised by a co-worker that he might receive a call requir-
ing him to undertake an assignment at the airport.
Appx. 831. Bonojo dressed and placed his loaded govern-
ment-issued firearm into a holster attached to his belt on
the right side of his body, concealed under his shirt.
Appx. 831-32.
Bonojo and his wife got into an argument about a text
message that his wife had seen on his phone. Appx. 832-
33. The argument became physical. Appx. 833. Bonojo
asserts that his wife grabbed and held onto him and tried
to take his phone from him. Id. He claims that he ex-
plained to his wife that she needed to stop because he had
a loaded firearm on his person, and she was creating a dan-
gerous situation. Appx. 833. Bonojo called the police.
Appx. 833-34. He asserts that he separated himself from
her and ran to the door, but she ran after him, caught him,
and began pulling on his waist to prevent him from escap-
ing the bedroom. Appx. 834. She pulled on the right side
1 Honorable Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge,
United States District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia, sitting by designation.
Case: 25-1050 Document: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 03/27/2026

-- 2 of 15 --

BONOJO v. DHS 3
of his waist, where his firearm was located. Appx. 834-35.
Bonojo was scared that the firearm would discharge and
knew that his children were in the house. Appx. 835. He
then bit his wife on the upper part of her arm, asserting
after the fact that he felt there was no other way to escape.
Appx. 835.
At that point, Bonojo escaped the bedroom and ran to
the living room, but his wife ran after him and began grab-
bing and hitting him as he tried to open the front door of
the house. Appx. 835. Bonojo called the police a second
time. Appx. 835. Police arrived and separated Bonojo and
his wife. Appx. 836. They took his wife to the kitchen,
while Bonojo stayed by the door. Appx. 836. Bonojo’s wife
told police that Bonojo had thrown her onto the bed, pushed
her, and bitten her right shoulder. Appx. 357.
After speaking with Bonojo’s wife, the police asked
Bonojo if he had bitten her, and Bonojo stated that he did
not know. Appx. 837. Bonojo called Supervisory Detention
and Deportation Officer Melanie White (“White”), his first-
line supervisor at the time, and advised her that there had
been a domestic altercation involving him and his wife,
that his wife had been acting “crazy,” and that police were
going to arrest both of them and take them to the station.
Appx. 837-39. Bonojo also told White that his wife had bit-
ten her own arm to make it seem as if he had attacked her.
Appx. 342. White advised Bonojo that someone would come
by to retrieve his credentials. Appx. 838-39.
Police arrested Bonojo and his wife, and Bonojo was
charged with simple assault. Appx. 875. While Bonojo was
in a holding cell, his second-line supervisor, Assistant Field
Office Director Frantz Jeudy (“Jeudy”), arrived to retrieve
Bonojo’s firearm and credentials and asked to speak to
Bonojo. Appx. 840. Bonojo also told Jeudy that his wife
had bitten herself. Appx. 214-15.
Bonojo had visible scratch marks. Appx. 203. Alt-
hough his wife had a visible bite mark, she did not have
Case: 25-1050 Document: 36 Page: 3 Filed: 03/27/2026

-- 3 of 15 --

BONOJO v. DHS 4
any lasting injury and did not require medical attention.
Appx. 36. After the incident, Bonojo was placed on light
duty and continued to report to work daily. Appx. 842. Ap-
proximately three months after the incident, the criminal
charges against Bonojo and his wife were dismissed. Appx.
842. In approximately September or October 2017, Bonojo
was returned to full duty. Appx. 842-43. Bonojo worked in
a full-duty capacity until his removal from his DO position
in April 2019. Appx. 843. During this time, Bonojo’s su-
pervisors did not complain about his work ethic or integ-
rity, and his performance was outstanding. Appx. 843-44.
In a memo to Jeudy dated February 21, 2017, White
indicated that when Bonojo called her to inform her that he
had been in an altercation with his wife, Bonojo stated that
his wife had been acting “crazy” and that she had bitten
herself on her arm “to make it appear he had attacked her.”
Appx. 358. Bonojo contends that he does not recall telling
White that his wife bit herself. Appx. 839-40. On
March 21, 2017, White submitted an affidavit to ICE’s Of-
fice of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) regarding the
incident, reiterating the substance of her memorandum.
Appx. 341-42.
On August 23, 2018, Bonojo appeared for an investiga-
tive interview. Appx. 228. During the interview, Bonojo
explained the incident. At this time, when Bonojo was
asked whether he bit his wife, he admitted that he did.
Appx. 845-46. He explained that because she was pulling
and grabbing him, and because he feared that the firearm
could inadvertently discharge, he felt that he needed to bite
her for her to release him. Appx. 845-46, 233-34. At sev-
eral points in the interview, investigators asked Bonojo
whether he had told his supervisors that his wife had bit-
ten herself, and each time, Bonojo stated that he had not.
Appx. 847, 236-39, 250-51. Bonojo denied having a conver-
sation about the bite mark with his supervisors. Appx. 251.
Case: 25-1050 Document: 36 Page: 4 Filed: 03/27/2026

-- 4 of 15 --

BONOJO v. DHS 5
On April 22, 2019, DHS proposed removing Bonojo
from federal service. Appx. 93–97. DHS proposed two
charges: (1) conduct unbecoming an officer, and (2) lack of
candor. Appx. 193. The first charge included one specifi-
cation:
Specification 1: On or about February 19, 2017, you
bit your wife Monsurat Bonojo on her right upper
arm, near her shoulder.
Appx. 193. The second charge included four specifications:
Specification 1: On or about February 19, 2017, you
said in sum and substance to SDDO Melanie
White: my wife was acting crazy and she bit her
arm to make it seem like I attacked her.
Specification 2: On or about February 19, 2017, you
said in sum and substance to AFOD Frantz Jeudy:
my wife started to bite herself.
Specification 3: On or about August 23, 2018, OPR
Special Agent Reuben Vega asked you in sum and
substance: did you at any time tell your supervisors
that your wife bit herself, and you responded “no.”
Specification 4: On or about August 23, 2018, you
said in sum and substance to OPR Special Agent
Reuben Vega: I never had any discussion with any
supervisor about my wife biting herself.
Appx. 193-94.
On December 11, 2019, Field Office Director Thomas
Decker (“Decker”) issued the DHS decision to remove
Bonojo. Appx. 138-48. Weighing the factors set forth in
Douglas v. Veterans Admin., 5 M.S.P.R. 280 (1981), Decker
found that Bonojo failed to act with the integrity required
of a law enforcement officer who is in “constant contact
with the public,” noting that he “is always expected to be-
have in a professional manner.” Appx. 153. Although
Decker observed that Bonojo had 10 years of service and no
Case: 25-1050 Document: 36 Page: 5 Filed: 03/27/2026

-- 5 of 15 --

BONOJO v. DHS 6
disciplinary record, he determined that these mitigating
factors did not outweigh the seriousness of Bonojo’s mis-
conduct. Appx. 154. Decker stated that he believed no pen-
alty short of removal would “convey the seriousness of
these offenses committed by a federal [law enforcement of-
ficer].” Appx. 156. On January 2, 2020, Bonojo timely filed
an appeal. Appx. 28. An Administrative Judge held a
hearing on March 3, 2021. DHS did not call any witnesses
to testify as to what transpired between Bonojo and his
wife. White testified that DOs are required to report to
their first-line supervisor “any incidents that happen on or
off duty which . . . may impede their ability to carry out
their mission.” Appx. 705. White stated that in reporting
an incident, a DO is required to provide “[t]he details of the
incident, what occurred, when it happened, and what
will . . . happen to them at the time.” Appx. 705. She tes-
tified that as a first-line supervisor, she is required to re-
port such information to her supervisor and to OPR, noting
that OPR investigates any incidents reported by DHS.
Appx. 706.
White testified that during her conversation with
Bonojo, he stated that his wife had bitten her own arm to
make it look as if he had bitten her. Appx. 709-10. Like-
wise, Jeudy testified that Bonojo told Jeudy that “his wife
just went crazy,” “[s]he started hurting herself,” and “[s]he
bit herself.” Appx. 809. In describing Bonojo’s duties,
White testified regarding Bonojo’s job duties and stated
that he was not required to present criminal cases to the
United States Attorney’s Office. Appx. 703-04, 799. Jeudy
noted that if a detainee would return to the United States
unlawfully, a DO would need verify and testify regarding
the removal, Appx. 799-800, but DHS did not present any
evidence that Bonojo had ever provided such verification or
testimony for a criminal prosecution during his career.
White confirmed that when Bonojo was restored to full
duty in December 2017, he was under her direct supervi-
sion and he was rated outstanding in all activities. Appx.
Case: 25-1050 Document: 36 Page: 6 Filed: 03/27/2026

-- 6 of 15 --

BONOJO v. DHS 7
718-20. Likewise, Decker testified that the incident had no
impact upon Bonojo’s performance of his duties until the
charges were sustained, that Bonojo had outstanding per-
formance after he was restored to duty, and that there had
been no complaints about his performance. Appx. 766–67.
On March 31, 2021, the Administrative Judge issued
an Initial Decision sustaining DHS’s charges and mitigat-
ing the penalty to reassignment to a non-law-enforcement-
officer position. Appx. 37. In sustaining the first charge,
conduct unbecoming a law enforcement officer, the Admin-
istrative Judge observed that it was “undisputed” that
Bonojo bit his wife’s arm. Appx. 32. In response to Bonojo’s
argument that he had acted in self-defense, the Adminis-
trative Judge noted that Bonojo admitted that biting was
not a defensive tactic taught to law enforcement officers.
Appx. 32. The Administrative Judge wrote, “I find that
even if one accepts . . . [Bonojo’s] version of what took
place, biting was not a reasonable tactic and that, as a
trained law enforcement officer, he could have used other
means to deescalate the situation.” Appx. 32.
With regard to the second charge, lack of candor, for
Specifications 1 and 2, the Administrative Judge found
that White’s and Jeudy’s statements were more credible
than Bonojo’s denials. Appx. 33-35. The Administrative
Judge observed that neither supervisor was conducting an
investigation but noted that Bonojo was “obligated to be
truthful in his statements[.]” Appx. 34-35. The Adminis-
trative Judge sustained Specifications 1 and 2. Appx. 34-
35. With regard to Specifications 3 and 4, which relate to
information Bonojo provided to OPR during his interview
on August 23, 2018, the Administrative Judge merged
them into a single specification. Appx. 35. She found that
Bonojo’s testimony was not credible and sustained the
merged specification. Appx. 35.
When assessing the reasonableness of the penalty, the
Administrative Judge determined that Decker had not
Case: 25-1050 Document: 36 Page: 7 Filed: 03/27/2026

-- 7 of 15 --

BONOJO v. DHS 8
adequately considered the fact that Bonojo’s wife was not
seriously injured and that Decker had not attributed ade-
quate weight to Bonojo’s overall performance. Appx. 36-37.
She noted that Bonojo was given an overall rating of out-
standing for the period of October 1, 2018, to September 30,
2019, and for the following rating period. Appx. 36-37. The
Administrative Judge further noted that at the time of the
removal, Bonojo had more than 10.5 years of federal civil-
ian service and did not have a prior disciplinary record.
Appx. 37. The Administrative Judge observed Decker’s
view that “if it was necessary for the appellant to testify,
his testimony could be impeached,” as well as Decker’s fail-
ure to consider imposing a penalty short of removal. Appx.
37. The Administrative Judge found that the maximum
reasonable penalty was placement in a non-law-enforce-
ment position, thus mitigating the penalty. Appx. 37.
Bonojo petitioned for review of the Initial Decision. Appx.
1. On August 22, 2024, the Board issued a Final Order
denying his petition and summarily affirming the Initial
Decision. Appx. 1-5. On October 7, 2024, Bonojo timely
filed a petition for review of the Board’s Final Order. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
D ISCUSSION
We set aside a decision of the Board only if it is “(1) ar-
bitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures re-
quired by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or
(3) unsupported by substantial evidence[.]” 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(c). Substantial evidence “means such relevant evi-
dence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Standley v. Dep’t of Energy, 26 F.4th
937, 942 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). “[T]he stand-
ard is not what the court would decide in a de novo ap-
praisal, but whether the administrative determination is
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a
whole.” Id. (citation omitted). “[T]he substantiality of evi-
dence must take into account whatever in the record fairly
Case: 25-1050 Document: 36 Page: 8 Filed: 03/27/2026

-- 8 of 15 --

BONOJO v. DHS 9
detracts from its weight.” McGuffin v. SSA, 942 F.3d 1099,
1107 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). The Court may not
“substitute [its] judgment for that of the [B]oard as to the
weight of the evidence or the inferences to be drawn there-
from.” Cross v. Dep’t of Transp., 127 F.3d 1443, 1448 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
Bonojo seeks vacatur of the Board’s Final Order for
three reasons. First, with respect to the charge for conduct
unbecoming an officer, Bonojo argues that the Board
abused its discretion and otherwise erred as a matter of law
in failing to assess whether Bonojo’s use of force was rea-
sonably necessary to prevent serious harm to himself, his
wife, his children, and others in the house. Second, Bonojo
argues that the disciplinary action against him for lack of
candor violated his rights to due process and his privilege
against self-incrimination. Third, Bonojo argues that in as-
sessing the penalty, the Board erred in relying upon DHS’s
concerns of a Giglio impairment without analyzing the ac-
tual impact of that impairment on Bonojo’s day-to-day du-
ties, including whether Bonojo actually testifies. For the
reasons discussed below, the Court affirms the Board’s Fi-
nal Order.
I.
With respect to the first charge, Bonojo argues that the
Board abused its discretion and otherwise erred as a mat-
ter of law in failing to assess whether Bonojo’s use of force
was reasonably necessary to prevent serious harm to him-
self, his wife, his children, and others in the house. Specif-
ically, he alleges that the Board failed to assess the
requisite factors under Fuller v. Dep’t of Navy, 94-3190, 40
F.3d 1250, 1994 WL 585732 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 26, 1994) (un-
published).
“A person is entitled to defend [him]self when it would
appear to a reasonable person under similar circumstances
that []he is in immediate danger of bodily harm.” Fuller,
1994 WL 585732, at *2. “However, []he is justified in using
Case: 25-1050 Document: 36 Page: 9 Filed: 03/27/2026

-- 9 of 15 --

BONOJO v. DHS 10
only such force as appears to be reasonably necessary to
resist the unlawful attack.” Id. Regardless of the burden
of proof, “[f]actors to consider in determining whether the
level of force was reasonably necessary include the amount
of force exerted, the means or instrument used, the manner
or method of applying the force, and the circumstances un-
der which the force was applied.” Id. (citation omitted).
Bonojo argues that neither the Initial Decision nor the
Final Order explicitly references self-defense, cites the
Fuller standard, or assesses what a reasonable person
would have done under the circumstances to neutralize the
risk presented to Bonojo. The Board did not explicitly
acknowledge Bonojo’s hearing testimony about how his
wife’s erratic behavior and relentless pulling on his belt
(which held the firearm) risked causing the firearm to dis-
lodge and discharge. The Administrative Judge did not ex-
plicitly acknowledge Bonojo’s testimony that he resorted to
biting to free himself and to prevent serious harm only af-
ter a series of escalating events.
Finally, Bonojo argues that the Administrative Judge,
in finding that “biting was not a reasonable tactic and that,
as a trained law enforcement officer, [Bonojo] could have
used other means to deescalate the situation,” did not ex-
plain why she believed that biting was not reasonable un-
der the circumstances and did not suggest what “other
means” Bonojo could have used to deescalate the situation.
In its Final Decision, the Board found that it was “reason-
able to expect that . . . [Bonojo] not resort to such violence”
and that Bonojo’s actions “cast[ed] doubt upon his ability
to perform his duties[.]” Appx. 4. Bonojo argues that the
Administrative Judge made a per se finding that one must
use a “taught defensive tactic” in order to be found to have
engaged in self-defense. DHS argues that the Administra-
tive Judge’s decision accounts for Bonojo’s claim of self-de-
fense because the Administrative Judge sustained the
charge “even if one accepts [Bonojo’s] version of what took
place[.]”
Case: 25-1050 Document: 36 Page: 10 Filed: 03/27/2026

-- 10 of 15 --

BONOJO v. DHS 11
We conclude that the Administrative Judge properly
considered the issue of self-defense. The Administrative
Judge found that Bonojo’s behavior was unreasonable
“even if one accepts Bonojo’s version of what took place,”
which assumes that she considered his self-defense argu-
ment. Although the Administrative Judge did not explic-
itly reference the Fuller factors, she considered them in
substance: the reasonableness of the force employed by
Bonojo, the amount of force he used, the means or instru-
ment used, the manner or method of applying the force,
and the circumstances under which the force was applied.
The Administrative Judge effectively determined that
Bonojo’s action was not self-defense because it was not rea-
sonably necessary to resist immediate danger of bodily
harm. See Fuller, 1994 WL 585732, at *2.
We also reject Bonojo’s contention that the Administra-
tive Judge made a per se finding that using a “taught de-
fensive tactic” is required in order to show self-defense.
Specifically, the Administrative Judge wrote,
At the Board hearing, the appellant testified that
his wife acted “crazy” in her attempts to get the
phone away from him. He testified that she would
not listen when he told her that the firearm was
loaded and that she had to stop. . . . Nevertheless,
he acknowledged that biting is not taught as a de-
fensive tactic for law enforcement officers.
I find that even if one accepts the appellant’s ver-
sion of what took place, biting was not a reasonable
tactic and that, as a trained law enforcement of-
ficer, he could have used other means to deescalate
the situation.
Appx. 32. The Administrative Judge merely noted that bit-
ing was a not a taught defensive tactic as part of her overall
determination that Bonojo’s behavior was not reasonable.
She did not create a per se rule with respect to taught de-
fensive tactics. Bonojo has not met his burden to show that
Case: 25-1050 Document: 36 Page: 11 Filed: 03/27/2026

-- 11 of 15 --

BONOJO v. DHS 12
we should hold unlawful or set aside the Board’s decision.
The Board’s Final Order is affirmed with respect to the
charge of conduct unbecoming of an officer.
II.
Bonojo argues that the disciplinary action against him
for the second charge, lack of candor, violated his rights to
due process and his privilege against self-incrimination be-
cause he was never given warnings pursuant to Kalkines v.
United States, 473 F.2d 1391 (Ct. Cl. 1973), and Garrity v.
New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). DHS argues that Bonojo
failed to raise a Fifth Amendment challenge before the
Board. Bonojo points out that he repeatedly raised the sig-
nificance of not being provided notice that his discussions
with supervisors could be relied upon for purposes of disci-
pline or were protective from self-incrimination.
For us to review an argument, the argument must first
be presented to the Board. Sistek v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs.,
955 F.3d 948, 953 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).
Specifically, below, Bonojo argued in a closing memoran-
dum dated March 8, 2021, that “[n]either SDDO White nor
AFOD Jeudy put [him] on notice that their conversations
were investigatory as opposed to a personal welfare check
in the midst of the ‘heat of the moment.’” Appx. 692. He
did so, however, for the purpose of arguing that his state-
ments were not “material” and could not support a lack of
candor charge. Appx. 686-93. During the evidentiary hear-
ing before the Administrative Judge, Bonojo’s counsel
asked White and Bonojo whether Kalkines warnings were
provided, but he did so for the purpose of showing that
Bonojo’s conversations with his supervisors were informal.
Appx. 722-23, 841-42. In a petition for review dated May
4, 2021, Bonojo pointed out that no “Weingarten” rights
were provided and the “risk of discipline” to him was never
made known, but, again, he asserted this for the purpose
Case: 25-1050 Document: 36 Page: 12 Filed: 03/27/2026

-- 12 of 15 --

BONOJO v. DHS 13
of arguing that the discussions were informal, non-investi-
gatory, and immaterial. Appx. 901-908.
It is undisputed that Bonojo did not explicitly mention
the Fifth Amendment before the Board. While Bonojo did
mention notice, he did not do so for the purpose of raising
a Fifth Amendment challenge. He never made a Fifth
Amendment challenge before the Board. Rather, Bonojo
raised the issue of notice to argue that the setting was in-
formal and that his statements were not material. Accord-
ingly, the Court finds that Bonojo’s Fifth Amendment
challenge with respect to the lack of candor charge has
been waived, and the Board’s Final Order is affirmed with
respect to the charge.
III.
Finally, Bonojo argues that in assessing the penalty,
the Board erred in relying upon DHS’s concerns of a Giglio
impairment without analyzing the actual impact of that
impairment on Bonojo’s day-to-day duties, including
whether Bonojo actually testifies. The reasonableness of a
penalty is determined by reference to the Douglas factors.
Holmes v. USPS, 987 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (cit-
ing Douglas, 5 M.S.P.R. at 280). If the Board finds DHS’s
penalty to be excessive, it may mitigate the penalty. See
5 U.S.C. § 7701; Lachance v. Devall, 178 F.3d 1246, 1260
(Fed. Cir. 1999). This Court reviews a penalty determina-
tion to ascertain “whether the penalty is clearly excessive
or an abuse of discretion.” Coleman v. U.S. Secret Serv.,
749 F.2d 726, 729 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). In its
review, the Court must “defer to the [Board’s] choice of pen-
alty unless the penalty exceeds the range of permissible
punishment specificized by statute or regulation, or unless
the penalty is so harsh and unconscionably disproportion-
ate to the offen[s]e that it amounts to an abuse of discre-
tion.” Tartaglia v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 858 F.3d 1405,
1408 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation and internal punctuation
omitted).
Case: 25-1050 Document: 36 Page: 13 Filed: 03/27/2026

-- 13 of 15 --

BONOJO v. DHS 14
Here, to contest the mitigated penalty, Bonojo argues
that the Board erred in relying on DHS’s stated concerns
that Bonojo is Giglio-impaired2 without analyzing the ac-
tual impact of that impairment on Bonojo’s day-to-day du-
ties. He argues that there is no evidence that any Giglio
impairment impacts or is otherwise relevant to Bonojo’s ac-
tual duties. Bonojo is not required to present criminal
cases to the United States Attorney’s Office or otherwise
directly work on criminal prosecutions, and he does not
regularly testify in court. DHS did not present any testi-
mony or other evidence that Bonojo has ever testified.
Bonojo argues that the Board’s error is compounded by
the fact that DHS has retained law-enforcement officers in
federal service despite their becoming potentially Giglio-
impaired due to charges involving lack of candor and other
acts of dishonesty, including far more egregious circum-
stances than are at issue here. Bonojo also argues that
other law enforcement agencies operate under the premise
that their officers who could be Giglio-impaired can, in fact,
be rehabilitated and continue to work as law-enforcement
officers. Overall, Bonojo argues that DHS’s professed con-
cerns here are conclusory and overstated.
DHS first argues that the Board’s mitigated penalty is
reasonable and that any further mitigation would be un-
reasonable, given the seriousness of Bonojo’s misconduct in
biting his wife. It argues that reassignment to a non-law
enforcement position is a reasonable penalty for an em-
ployee who committed conduct unbecoming an officer. Sec-
ond, DHS argues that Bonojo has misread the
Administrative Judge’s opinion. Although DHS, in remov-
ing Bonojo, relied on the fact that Bonojo could be Giglio-
2 Pursuant to Giglio v. United States, a law enforce-
ment officer called to testify in a criminal proceeding must
disclose prior misconduct that is probative of truthfulness.
405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972).
Case: 25-1050 Document: 36 Page: 14 Filed: 03/27/2026

-- 14 of 15 --

BONOJO v. DHS 15
impaired if called to testify, the Administrative Judge
merely listed DHS’s concerns regarding Giglio-impairment
among her considerations when mitigating the penalty.
Appx. 37. The Administrative Judge observed that Decker
had “expressed the view” that Bonojo’s testimony could be
impeached and that the deciding official had not considered
a penalty short of removal. Appx. 37. The Administrative
Judge then disagreed with the deciding official and im-
posed a lesser penalty. Thus, DHS argues, the Adminis-
trative Judge did not adopt DHS’s Giglio-based rationale.
Finally, to the extent that Bonojo tries to draw comparisons
to other law enforcement officers who were potentially Gi-
glio-impaired, DHS argues that Bonojo forfeited the ability
to make comparator arguments because he did not raise
them below. Regardless, DHS argues that Bonojo conflates
penalties imposed by DHS with penalties imposed by the
Board.
The Court agrees with DHS that Bonojo has misread
the Administrative Judge’s decision. The record indicates
that the Board weighed the relevant factors. The Admin-
istrative Judge summarized Decker’s findings regarding
Giglio-impairment and was not relying on Giglio-impair-
ment as a justification for any enhanced sentence. Of
course, the Administrative Judge actually disagreed with
DHS’s assessment and reduced the sentence. Overall, the
penalty imposed is not clearly excessive or an abuse of dis-
cretion. Accordingly, the penalty is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Bonojo’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
firm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 25-1050 Document: 36 Page: 15 Filed: 03/27/2026

-- 15 of 15 --