
    Boris GALINSKY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD, Respondent, Bank of America Corporation, Intervenor.
    No. 12-5133-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 26, 2014.
    Boris Galinsky, pro se, Newark, NJ, for Petitioner.
    M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor; Jennifer S. Brand, Associate Solicitor; William C. Lesser, Deputy Associate Solicitor; Megan E. Guenther, Counsel for Whistleblower Programs; Mary J. Rieser, Attorney; U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Valecia M. McDowell, Mark A. Nebrig, and Frank E. Schall, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, Charlotte, NC, for Intervenor.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
      . Judge Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., originally assigned to this panel, recused himself from this case. The remaining two judges issue this order in accordance with Second Circuit Internal Operating Procedure E(b).
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Boris Galinsky, pro se, seeks review of an October 31, 2012 decision of the ARB, affirming the dismissal by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) of his complaints alleging retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

We apply the rules and procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to review a final decision by the ARB on a whistleblower retaliation claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(A); 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(4)(A); Bechtel v. Admin. Review Bd., 710 F.3d 443, 445 (2d Cir.2013). We will uphold a decision by the ARB unless it is “unsupported by substantial evidence” or is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (E); see Bechtel, 710 F.3d at 445-46.

To state a prima facie claim of retaliation under 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, an employee must show that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity or conduct; (2) the employer knew of that activity or conduct; (3) he suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and (4) the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable action. See Bechtel, 710 F.3d at 447. If the employee establishes these four elements, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action absent his protected activity. See id.', 49 U.S.C. § 42121 (b)(2)(B)(iv).

Here, a review of the administrative record and case law reveals that the ARB applied the correct legal standard and its decision was supported by substantial evidence. We have considered all of Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary, and find them to be without merit. The petition for review is accordingly DENIED.  