In re ABDEL-KARIM

Case: 26-164 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 09/28/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________

In Re NOHA N. ABDEL-KARIM,

Petitioner ______________________ 2026-164 ______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Merit Sys- tems Protection Board in No. DC-0752-26-1018-I-1.

______________________ ON PETITION ______________________

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Noha N. Abdel-Karim petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the Merit Systems Protection Board to take cer- tain action in her Board removal appeal involving an af- firmative defense of at least disability discrimination.1 ECF No. 2 at 179.

1 Dr. Abdel-Karim also requests that the court “[i]ssue an emergency stay of all proceedings” in her Board appeal, including a hearing scheduled for October 5–6, 2026, pending resolution of this petition. ECF No. 2 at 1. Case: 26-164 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 09/28/2026 2 IN RE ABDEL-KARIM

The All Writs Act authorizes courts to issue writs “nec- essary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdic- tions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Because “[t]he All Writs Act is not an independent basis of jurisdiction, . . . the petitioner must initially show that the action sought to be corrected by mandamus is within this court’s statutorily defined sub- ject matter jurisdiction.” Baker Perkins, Inc. v. Werner & Pfleiderer Corp., 710 F.2d 1561, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Dr. Abdel-Karim fails to make that showing.

Although our jurisdiction includes authority to review certain final decisions of the Board, it does not include au- thority to review “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” id. § 7703(b)(2)—cases in- volving allegations that an action appealable to the Board was based on covered discrimination, id. § 7702. Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017). While Dr. Abdel-Karim states that this case “does not involve dis- crimination claims that would route jurisdiction to a dis- trict court,” ECF No. 2 at 2, her filings demonstrate otherwise, see, e.g., id. (challenging order regarding her dis- crimination claims); id. at 179 (describing an affirmative defense of at least disability discrimination), and she has not expressly abandoned any discrimination claim raised to the Board.

Because this court would lack jurisdiction over a peti- tion for review from a final Board decision under these cir- cumstances, we lack jurisdiction to consider Dr. Abdel- Karim’s petition for mandamus.

Accordingly, Case: 26-164 Document: 5 Page: 3 Filed: 09/28/2026 IN RE ABDEL-KARIM 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is dismissed.

FOR THE COURT September 28, 2026

Date