U.S. Code » Title 22 » Chapter CHAPTER 52— FOREIGN SERVICE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER XI— GRIEVANCES

22 U.S.C. § 4140

Judicial review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Any aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of a final action of the Secretary or the Board on any grievance in the district courts of the United States in accordance with the standards set forth in chapter 7 of title 5, if the request for judicial review is filed not later than 180 days after the final action of the Secretary or the Board (or in the case of an aggrieved party who is posted abroad at the time of the final action of the Secretary or the Board, if the request for judicial review is filed not later than 180 days after the aggrieved party’s return to the United States). Section 706 of title 5 shall apply without limitation or exception. This subsection shall not apply to any grievance with respect to which subsection (b) applies.(b)(1) For purposes of this subsection, the term “aggrieved party” means a grievant.(2) With respect to a grievance based on an alleged violation of a law, rule, regulation, or policy directive referred to in section 4131(a)(1)(H) of this title, judicial review of whether the act, omission, or condition that is the basis of the grievance violates such law, rule, regulation, or policy directive may be obtained by an aggrieved party only if such party commences a civil action, not later than 90 days after such party receives notice of the final action of the Secretary or the Board, in an appropriate district court of the United States for de novo review.(Pub. L. 96–465, title I, § 1110, Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2148; Pub. L. 102–138, title I, § 153(e), Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 674; Pub. L. 103–236, title I, § 177(b), Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 414.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–236 inserted before period at end of first sentence “, if the request for judicial review is filed not later than 180 days after the final action of the Secretary or the Board (or in the case of an aggrieved party who is posted abroad at the time of the final action of the Secretary or the Board, if the request for judicial review is filed not later than 180 days after the aggrieved party’s return to the United States)”.

1991—Pub. L. 102–138 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted provision that subsec. (a) not apply to any grievance with respect to which subsec. (b) applies, and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1991 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–138 not applicable with respect to any grievance, within the meaning of section 4131 of this title, arising before Oct. 28, 1991, see section 153(f) of Pub. L. 102–138, set out as a note under section 4115 of this title.

Judicial Review of Certain Foreign Service Grievances

Pub. L. 101–246, title I, § 152, Feb. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 42, provided that: “For the purposes of judicial review under section 1110 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 [22 U.S.C. 4140], any recommendation made by the Foreign Service Grievance Board with respect to the tenure of a grievant which was reviewed by the Secretary of State before the date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 [Dec. 22, 1987], shall be considered to be a final action of the Department of State, and any such recommendation shall be considered to have been made within the authority of the Foreign Service Grievance Board.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Wright v. Foreign Serv. Grievance Bd., 503 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wright v. Foreign Serv. Grievance Bd., 503 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2007). · cites it 2× “without limitation or exception.” Id. As set forth in 5 U.”
Bloch v. Powell, 227 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 2× “” 22 U.S.C. § 4140 . The FSA further provides that the APA “shall apply without limitation or exception” to a district court’s review.”
Karl Hampton v. Tom Vilsack, 685 F.3d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “If Hampton sought to attack the factual basis of the FSGB’s decision, he should have sought judicial review of that decision pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 4140 (a). See 22 U.S.C. § 4140 (a) (“Any aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of a final action of .”
United States of Am. v. Christopher Paddack, 825 F.2d 504 (D.C. Cir. 1987). · cites it 4× “In any event, as the government itself emphasized, the Foreign Service Grievance Board is “an independent adjudicatory Board whose decisions generally are binding on the grievant and agency alike subject only to review under 22 U.S.C. § 4140 .” (Appellant’s Supplemental Brief at…”
Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 399d(b)(4)(A); 22 U.S.C. § 4140 (b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 2265 (c)(3); 30 U.”
Ehrman v. United States, 429 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2006). · cites it 2× “22 U.S.C. § 4140 (a). Because the APA governs this Court’s review FSGB decisions, see 22 U.”
Aragon v. Tillerson, 240 F. Supp. 3d 99 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 2× “” 22 U.S.C. § 4140 . The FSA provides that the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.”
Bloch, Felix S. v. Powell, Colin L., 348 F.3d 1060 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “Bloch sought review of the Board’s decision in the District Court for the District of Columbia, see 22 U.S.C. § 4140 , arguing that the FSGB had erred in failing to consider the question whether the Secretary had discretion to withhold consent to the immediate annuity.”
Lubow v. United States Dep't of State, 783 F.3d 877 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “See 22 U.S.C. § 4140 (a); 5 U.S.C. § 704 . The APA “requires us to set aside agency action that is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
Toy v. United States, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 2× “” 22 U.S.C. § 4140 . The FSA further provides that the APA “shall apply without limitation or exception” to a district court’s review.”
Kerr v. U.S. Dep't of State, 305 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that the "appeal and grievance processes available to [him] by the Department of State made no effort to objectively evaluate the performance examples used against [him], but instead simply ratified the process, making it impossible for [him] to…”
Thompson v. Dep't of State, 400 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2005). “22 U.S.C. § 4140 (actions of the FSGB are judicially reviewed pursuant to 5 U.”
Show all 61 citing cases →
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.