5 C.F.R. § 1201.92
Criteria for certifying interlocutory appeals
The judge will certify a ruling for review only if the record shows that:
(a) The ruling involves an important question of law or policy about which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and
(b) An immediate ruling will materially advance the completion of the proceeding, or the denial of an immediate ruling will cause undue harm to a party or the public.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Pere Jarboe v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2023 MSPB 22 (MSPB 2023).
Pere Jarboe v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2023 MSPB 22 (MSPB 2023). “” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.92 (a). The respondent’s request to disqualify the presiding ALJ does not present an important question of law or policy, as the Board’s standards for disqualification are well established.”
Tammika Richardson v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2023 MSPB 1 (MSPB 2023). “” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.92 . ¶11 The criteria for certifying an interlocutory appeal are met in this case.”
Schoenrogge v. Dep't of Just., 148 F. App'x 941 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.92 (current through Aug. 2, 2005) (governing certification of interlocutory appeals to the Board).”
Lisa J. Hess v. United States Postal Serv., 2016 MSPB 40 (MSPB 2016). “683 , ¶ 5 (2005); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.92 . In light of the lack of guidance regarding the impact of the Savage decision on the Board’s authority to award compensatory damages, we find that certificatio n was proper.”
Vera Davis-Clewis v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2024 MSPB 5 (MSPB 2024). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.92 . We find that the administrative judge properly applied these criteria in certifying her finding that the Board lacks the authority to address the appellant’s constitutional challenge regarding statutory restrictions on the removal of Board administrative…”
Lisa J. Hess v. United States Postal Serv., 2016 MSPB 40 (MSPB 2016). “683 , ¶ 5 (2005); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.92 . In light of the lack of guidance regarding the impact of the Savage decision on the Board’s authority to award compensatory damages, we find that certificatio n was proper.”
IN RE TINKER AFSC/DP v. Dep't of the Air Force, 2014 MSPB 51 (MSPB 2014). “” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.92 . ¶12 The criteria for certifying an interlocutory appeal are met in this case.”
IN RE TINKER AFSC/DP v. Dep't of the Air Force, 2014 MSPB 51 (MSPB 2014). “” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.92 . ¶12 The criteria for certifying an interlocutory appeal are met in this case.”
Gilbert Aguirre v. Dep't of Def. (MSPB 2023). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.92 . ¶6 The Board will not reverse an administrative judge’s denial of a request for certification absent an abuse of discretion.”
John Paul Jones, III v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (MSPB 2015). “He denied the certification motion because it merely reargued the appellant’s motion to disqualify the administrative judge and was “devoid of any evidence or argument addressing the requirements of 5 C.F.R. § 1201.92 for certification of an interlocutory appeal.”
John Doe v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n (MSPB 2016). “” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.92 . ¶6 After careful consideration, we find that an immediate ruling will not materially advance the adjudication of these appeals, and thus we dismiss the interlocutory appeal and return this matter to the administrative judge for further adjudication.”
Lisa J. Hess v. United States Postal Serv., 2016 MSPB 39 (MSPB 2016). “683 , ¶ 5 (2005); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.92 . In light of the lack of guidance regarding the impact of the Savage decision on the Board’s authority to award compensatory damages, we find that certificatio n was proper.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.