DISSENTING OPINION BY
Senior Judge FRIEDMAN.The majority concludes that, even where there is a significant delay between the time the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) has notice of a parolee’s conviction and the time when the Board receives official verification of the conviction, the Board is not required to establish that the delay was reasonable and justifiable in order to prove that its revocation hearing was timely. Rather, according to the majority, so long as the Board shows that the revocation hearing was held within 120 days of the Board’s receipt of official verification of the parolee’s new conviction, the Board satisfies its burden of proving that the hearing was timely. I disagree and, therefore, respectively dissent.
As the majority correctly states, where, as here, a parolee challenges the timeliness of a revocation hearing, the Board bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the hearing was timely. Ramos v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 954 A.2d 107 (Pa. Cmwlth.2008). Pursuant to the Board’s regulation, a revocation hearing “shall be *90held within 120 days from the date the Board received official verification of the plea of guilty or nolo contendere or of the guilty verdict at the highest trial court level....” 37 Pa.Code § 71.4(1). Official verification is the actual receipt by a parolee’s supervising parole agent of a direct written communication from a court in which the parolee was convicted of a new criminal charge attesting that the parolee was so convicted. 37 Pa.Code § 61.1. There is no question that Rufus Lawson’s (Lawson) parole revocation hearing on January 28, 2008, was less than 120 days after Agent Rubio received official verification of Lawson’s new conviction on November 29, 2007.
Nevertheless, Lawson relies on Ramos and Fitzhugh v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 154 Pa.Cmwlth. 123, 623 A.2d 376 (1993), on appeal for the proposition that, even where a parole revocation hearing is held within 120 days of the Board’s receipt of official verification, “if there is a delay between the time the Board has notice of the conviction and the time when the Board receives official verification of the conviction, the Board has the burden of proving that the delay was not unreasonable and unjustifiable.” Ramos, 954 A.2d at 109 (citing Fitzhugh) (emphasis added). The majority concludes that the “common law” setting forth the “unreasonable and unjustifiable delay” rule, i.e., the “due diligence” rule, no longer applies to whether a parole revocation hearing is timely.
The majority states:
In summary, the timeliness of a parole revocation hearing is governed by statute and regulation, not the “common law.” Neither statute nor regulation places a burden on the Board to demonstrate that it exercised due diligence in obtaining official verification of a parolee’s new conviction. The Board’s duties are set by the Parole Act and its implementing, duly promulgated regulation at 37 Pa.Code § 71.4(1).
(Majority op. at 88.) However, the “due diligence” rule prevents the Board from violating the due process rights of prisoners. Williams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 134 Pa.Cmwlth. 597, 579 A.2d 1369 (1990). Neither the statute nor the regulation is valid if applied in such a manner as to violate due process. By ignoring the underlying basis for the “common law” rule prohibiting the Board from delaying unreasonably and unjustifiably in obtaining official verification of a conviction, the majority sanctions the violation of prisoner due process rights.
Moreover, to the extent that the majority dismisses Ramos and Fitzhugh as irrelevant and characterizes the requirement that the Board explain the reason for such a delay as mere dicta, I believe the majority errs.
The majority concludes that the unreasonable and unjustifiable delay language in Ramos “does not relate to the central issue in Ramos, which was one of evidence, i.e., whether the Board could take official notice of statements in the parole agent’s report that she attempted to obtain verification on three occasions and otherwise acted appropriately.” (Majority op. at 88.) I strongly disagree. The very question in Ramos, as here, was “whether the Board offered sufficient evidence that the delay in receiving the official verification evidence was reasonable and justifiable.” Ram,os, 954 A.2d at 109. The court concluded that, because the only evidence offered by the Board to demonstrate that the parole agent acted with due diligence was inadmissible hearsay, “the Board failed to meet its burden that the delay was reasonable or justifiable.... ” Id. at 110. Thus, Ramos supports Lawson’s position that the Board has to offer evidence *91establishing that the delay was reasonable or justifiable in order for the Board to satisfy its burden of proving a timely revocation hearing.
With regard to Fitzhugh, the majority states, “Fitzhugh did not establish the broad principle that the Board has an obligation to retrieve conviction records.” (Majority op. at 88.) Contrary to the majority’s position, the court in Fitzhugh rejected the notion that a parolee must be forced to wait for an unreasonable period of time until the Board chooses to act upon its knowledge that a conviction has occurred. In so concluding, the court recognized that, where there is the possibility of an unjustifiable and unreasonable delay, the Board must offer evidence justifying the extended delay in obtaining official notification of a known conviction. Accordingly, it is clear under Fitzhugh that, if there is an allegedly unreasonable delay between the time the Board has knowledge of a parolee’s conviction and the time the Board acts upon that knowledge to obtain the official verification, the Board must offer evidence to justify that delay.
Because I conclude that Ramos and Fitzhugh are applicable here, I do not believe that the Board satisfied its burden to prove a timely hearing merely because that hearing was held within 120 days of receipt of official verification of a new conviction. Rather, the Board also had the obligation to present evidence establishing that the five-month delay between the date on which the Board learned of Lawson’s new conviction and the date on which the Board received official verification of that new conviction was not unreasonable or unjustifiable. I agree with Lawson that Vanderpool v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 874 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Cmwlth.2005), and Taylor v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 931 A.2d 114 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 750, 946 A.2d 690 (2008), support his argument that the Board did not meet that obligation.
In Vanderpool, the parolee relied on Fitzhugh to argue that there was an unreasonable and unjustifiable delay; however, we rejected that argument because the Board established the reason for delay through the parole agent’s specific testimony that she had difficulty in obtaining official verification due to the confusion caused by the parolee’s use of numerous aliases. Similarly, in Taylor, the parolee relied on Fitzhugh to argue that there was no valid reason for the delay between the parole agent’s request for proof of the parolee’s convictions and the receipt of official verification; however, we rejected that argument, finding Fitzhugh distinguishable because the parole agent explained that the delay was the result of the unavailability of court files due to a court backlog and that she took affirmative steps to obtain the official verification.1 In con*92trast, in McDonald v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 673 A.2d 27 (Pa. Cmwlth.1996), and Williams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 145 Pa.Cmwlth. 31, 602 A.2d 434, appeal denied, 533 Pa. 616, 618 A.2d 405 (1992), we held that the Board could not prove that the delay was reasonable and justifiable where it failed to offer an explanation for the delay.
Unlike the specific testimony offered by the parole agents in Vanderpool and Taylor, Agent Rubio did not describe his efforts to obtain the official verification or explain the delay in obtaining that verification. Instead, Agent Rubio stated, “Yeah, we tried to — well we requested original back in June — around June of '07. We weren’t able to get it. Some problem with the courts. I don’t know.” (C.R. at 36-38) (emphasis added). Because Agent Ru-bio testified that he did not know why there was a five-month delay between his request for official verification and the receipt of that verification, his testimony cannot provide substantial evidence that the delay was reasonable and justifiable. Thus, I do not believe that the Board met its burden of proving that Lawson’s revocation hearing was timely, and, accordingly, I would reverse the Board’s revocation.
. The majority asserts that Lawson's reliance on Vanderpool and Taylor to support his position is misplaced. I disagree.
According to the majority, the real import of Vanderpool was this court's reiteration of the analysis in Lee v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 141 Pa.Cmwlth. 79, 596 A.2d 264 (1991), and the holding that a parole revocation hearing held within 120 days after the receipt of the certified charges is reasonable for the purposes of due process. (Majority op. at 89.) Although this was the ultimate holding of Vanderpool, the court reached that holding only after rejecting the parolee’s assertion that the delay in his case was unreasonable and unjustifiable pursuant to Fitzhugh. Vanderpool.
Similarly, the majority concludes that, in Taylor, the court again relied on Lee to affirm the Board’s denial of administrative relief “for the simple reason that Taylor's hearing was held within 120 days of the official verification of Taylor’s conviction.” (Majority op. at 89, quoting Taylor, 931 A.2d at 119-20.) However, the language quoted was not the sole basis for affirming. The court also con-*92eluded that, based on the testimony regarding the trial court’s backlog, “there is no unreasonable delay on the part of the Board as there was in Fitzhugh and Williams [v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 134 Pa.Cmwlth. 597, 579 A.2d 1369 (1990)].” Taylor, 931 A.2d at 119.
Moreover, I believe that Lee is distinguishable from the case presently before the court because, there, the parolee claimed that his revocation was untimely because his parole agent "was on notice of the pending charges " against the parolee. Lee, 596 A.2d at 265 (emphasis added). However, unlike the parolee in Lee, Lawson challenges the delay between the Board's knowledge of his conviction and its receipt of official verification of that conviction.