*1 Before P ROST , R EYNA , and C UNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges . P ER C URIAM .
O R D E R
In response to the court’s February 3, 2022 order to show cause, the Office of Personnel Management urges dis- missal of this petition for review as untimely. Irene D. Campbell has not responded.
Ms. Campbell filed an appeal at the Merit Systems Pro- tection Board seeking review of the denial of her applica- tion for disability retirement. On April 7, 2021, the administrative judge (AJ) issued an initial decision affirm- ing the Office of Personnel Management’s decision. That *2 Case: 22-1255 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 04/05/2022
2 CAMPBELL v. OPM decision became the final decision of the Board on May 12, 2021, because Ms. Campbell did not seek further review at the Board. This court received Ms. Campbell’s petition for review 211 days later, on December 9, 2021.
Section 7703(b)(1)(A) of title 5 of the U.S. Code states that a petition for review from the Board “shall be filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final or- der or decision of the Board.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). This court has held that section 7703(b)(1)(A)’s deadline is juris- dictional and not subject to equitable tolling. See Fedora v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 848 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (confirming that § 7703(b)(1)(A)’s deadline is jurisdic- tional). Thus, we may only consider whether the petition for review was timely filed. Ms. Campbell’s petition here was received outside of the 60-day filing deadline, and we therefore must dismiss.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition for review is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
F OR THE C OURT April 5, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court