Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): denied him due process of law when it dismissed his appeal without again directing him to argue for application of equitable tolling. II. This court reviews the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ interpretation of statutes without deference to the extent presented and necessary for a decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d) (1994); Epps v. Gober, 126 F.3d 1464, 1466-67 (Fed.Cir.1997); Prenzler v. Derwinski, 928 F.2d 392, 393 (Fed.Cir.1991). This review includes questions of statutory jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (c) (1994); Wick v. Brown, 40 F.3d 367, 370 (Fed.Cir.1994). Furthermore, this court narrowly construes jurisdictional statutes. Wick, 40 F.3d at 370. This court does not review a challenge to a factual determination made by the Secretary or the Board of Veterans’ Appeal 00) (<HOLDING>). But see Friendly Fin. Corp. v. Bovee, 702 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that service was not defeated by an address with an incorrect zip code (B) holding that an incorrect zip code does not render an otherwise proper address improper (C) holding that an inaccurate zip code does not render an address improper for purposes of texas rule of civil procedure 5 (D) holding a missing zip code to be an inconsequential error that does not defeat a notice of deficiency (E) holding that although an address in which the zip code is incorrect may be properly addressed an address in which both the zip code and the street address is incorrect is not properly addressed
Output (English): holding a missing zip code to be an inconsequential error that does not defeat a notice of deficiency