Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07060/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07060-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rashid El Malik
Appellant
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RASHID EL MALIK,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7060

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-656, Judge Mary J. Schoelen.

______________________ 

Decided: July 7, 2015 

______________________ 

RASHID EL MALIK, Palos Verdes Estate, CA, pro se.

ERIC JOHN SINGLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR.; DAVID J. BARRANS, MARTIN 

JAMES SENDEK, Office of General Counsel, United States 

Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-7060 Document: 14-2 Page: 1 Filed: 07/07/2015
2 EL MALIK v. MCDONALD

Before NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Veteran Rashid El Malik petitions for review of the 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) 

order denying his petition for writ of mandamus. El 

Malik v. McDonald, No. 14-0656, 2014 WL 4248122 (Vet. 

App. Aug. 28, 2014) (Order). In his underlying claim, Mr. 

El Malik seeks a disability rating for a left wrist condition 

and an additional allotment of Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) due to Aid and Attendance (A&A). Because 

we agree that Mr. El Malik failed to demonstrate that he 

lacks or lacked alternative means to obtain relief, we 

affirm in part. And because Mr. El Malik’s remaining 

arguments fall outside our jurisdiction, we dismiss in 

part.

I. BACKGROUND

Mr. El Malik served on active duty in the U.S. Army 

from January 1968 to June 1969. The Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) has since determined that Mr. El 

Malik is partially or fully disabled due to several serviceconnected conditions, including separate determination 

ratings of 100 percent disability for post-traumatic stress 

disorder since September 1991, and loss of effective use of 

both legs due to service connected bilateral knee replacements since September 2003. El Malik v. Shinseki, 555 F. 

App’x 986, 988–89 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (listing several serviceconnected disabilities for which Mr. El Malik was receiving benefits); Respondent’s Appendix (R.A.) 186–187 

(rating decisions from the VA Los Angeles Regional 

Office). In May 2006, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

(Board) awarded Mr. El Malik A&A at the “n and a half” 

rate as a result of his combined disabilities. El Malik, 555 

F. App’x at 988–91 (finding no legal error in the Veterans 

Court’s affirmance of the Board’s decision to grant SMC at 

the intermediate “n and a half” rate).

Case: 15-7060 Document: 14-2 Page: 2 Filed: 07/07/2015
EL MALIK v. MCDONALD 3

After the Board’s May 2006 decision, Mr. El Malik requested from the VA Regional Office (RO) an increased 

rating for his previously-rated low back strain, service 

connection for a left wrist condition, and an additional 

allowance for A&A. In January 2007, the RO issued a 

decision that declined to increase Mr. El Malik’s rating for 

his low back strain, denied service connection for his left 

wrist, and denied additional A&A. Mr. El Malik appealed 

the RO’s decision to the Board on September 28, 2007. 

The Board sent a letter to Mr. El Malik on October 11, 

2007, stating that his appeal had been received. 

On February 28, 2014, Mr. El Malik filed a petition 

for writ of mandamus at the Veterans Court, asking the 

Veterans Court to compel the VA to act on his claims for a 

left wrist disability and additional A&A. Order at *1. 

The Veterans Court ordered the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs (Secretary) to file a response. Id. 

Regarding Mr. El Malik’s left wrist claim, the Secretary acknowledged that Mr. El Malik’s appeal had not yet 

been resolved by the Board because his file had been lost 

after being transferred among various VA offices on 

numerous occasions. Id. The VA then reconstructed the 

missing portions of Mr. El Malik’s file and, on August 4, 

2014, the Secretary notified the Veterans Court that Mr. 

El Malik was awarded service connection for a left wrist 

disability at a 10 percent disability rating effective June 

20, 2006, and at a 40 percent disability rating effective 

July 17, 2014. Id. at *2. The Veterans Court then held 

that mandamus was not warranted for Mr. El Malik’s left 

wrist claim, holding that it “need not retain jurisdiction 

. . . because he can now pursue his claim by appealing the 

rating decision to the Board.” Id. at *3 (citing Lamb v. 

Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (noting that 

a petition is not a substitute for an appeal)). 

Regarding Mr. El Malik’s additional A&A claim, the 

Secretary notified the Veterans Court that a July 2012 

Case: 15-7060 Document: 14-2 Page: 3 Filed: 07/07/2015
4 EL MALIK v. MCDONALD

rating decision had awarded him additional A&A effective 

June 23, 2009. Id. at *1. The Veterans Court then ordered Mr. El Malik to show cause why his petition should 

not be dismissed with regard to that claim. Id. at *2. Mr. 

El Malik responded that he was entitled to additional 

A&A as of 2002. Id. The Veterans Court held that mandamus was not warranted for Mr. El Malik’s additional 

A&A claim because the proper adjudication of his claim 

was to appeal (1) the 2006 Board decision that found Mr. 

El Malik did not meet the criteria for additional A&A, (2) 

the 2007 VA rating decision that again denied additional 

A&A, or (3) the 2012 VA rating decision that granted 

additional A&A back to June 23, 2009. Id. at *3

Mr. El Malik appeals the decision of the Veterans 

Court. 

II. DISCUSSION

A 

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. Guillory v. Shinseki, 603 F.3d 

981, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction over “all 

relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). 

We lack jurisdiction over any “challenge to a factual 

determination” or “challenge to a law or regulation as 

applied to the facts of a particular case” absent a constitutional issue. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). We set aside a 

Veterans Court decision only if it is “arbitrary, capricious, 

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance 

with law. . . .” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1)(A). 

To obtain mandamus, the petitioner must show (1) 

that he has a clear legal right to relief, (2) that there are 

no adequate alternative legal channels through which the 

petitioner may obtain that relief, and (3) that the grant of 

mandamus relief is appropriate under the circumstances. 

See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81

Case: 15-7060 Document: 14-2 Page: 4 Filed: 07/07/2015
EL MALIK v. MCDONALD 5

(2004); Hargrove v. Shinseki, 629 F.3d 1377, 1378 (Fed.

Cir. 2011). Moreover, the issuance of a writ of mandamus 

is “in large part a matter of discretion with the court to 

which the petition is addressed.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court 

for N. Dist. of Calif., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976) (citations 

omitted). 

B 

As a preliminary matter, the government contends 

that we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

We disagree in part. The government’s position on appeals of mandamus denials has already been rejected by 

this court’s decision in Lamb, 284 F.3d at 1381. In response to a similar jurisdictional argument advanced by 

the government in this case, this Court determined that 

although Congress intended the Veterans Court to be the 

final arbiter of all factual issues, “[t]here is no indication, 

however, that in thus limiting our jurisdiction, Congress 

intended to insulate from judicial review that court’s 

ruling on mandamus petitions.” Id. at 1382. This Court 

has thus consistently exercised jurisdiction over mandamus petitions that raise legal questions within our jurisdiction. See, e.g., Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 

(Fed. Cir. 2013); Lamb, 284 F.3d at 1381–82; Cox v. West, 

149 F.3d 1360, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In doing so, 

“[w]e may not review the factual merits of the veteran’s 

claim, but we may determine whether the petitioner has 

satisfied the legal standard for issuing the writ.” Beasley, 

709 F.3d at 1158.

C 

Mr. El Malik argues that the September 28, 2007, appeal to the Board for additional A&A remains unresolved

because the July 2012 VA rating decision disposed of a 

completely separate claim for additional A&A. Mr. El 

Malik contends that his claim in the 2007 appeal related 

to his double-knee replacement in 2004, whereas the 2012 

rating decision resolved a different claim related to “the 

Case: 15-7060 Document: 14-2 Page: 5 Filed: 07/07/2015
6 EL MALIK v. MCDONALD

loss of use of his third extremity.” Petitioner’s Brief (Pet. 

Br.) at 5. The record does not support Mr. El Malik’s 

contention. The 2007 appeal did not relate to Mr. El 

Malik’s double-knee replacement. Instead, the appeal 

related to the denial of additional A&A “on the basis that 

the petitioner was bedridden because of . . . right wrist 

derangement,” i.e., the loss of use of his third extremity. 

Order at *3; see R.A. 138–48 (the January 2007 VA rating 

decision). The 2012 rating decision that granted additional A&A back to June 23, 2009, considered the evidence and arguments that were in front of the Board in

2007, and determined that the effective date of June 23, 

2009, corresponded to the date of “post traumatic right 

wrist derangement.” R.A. 182–89. Mr. El Malik’s claim 

for additional A&A related to his double-knee replacement in 2004 was resolved by the Board in a May 2006 

decision, which awarded Mr. El Malik “n and a half” rate 

as a result of his combined disabilities. El Malik, 555 F. 

App’x at 988, 991 (finding no legal error in the Veterans 

Court’s decision that the Board did not commit clear and 

unmistakable error in denying additional compensation to 

Mr. El Malik). The record, therefore, shows that Mr. El 

Malik’s September 28, 2007, appeal to the Board for 

additional A&A was resolved by the VA in July 2012. As 

the Veterans Court noted, Mr. El Malik offered no evidence that he appealed the 2012 rating decision, and a 

writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. 

Order at *3. 

Mr. El Malik also fails to demonstrate that he lacks 

alternative means to obtain relief for his left wrist claim. 

Mr. El Malik contends that he appealed his left wrist 

rating decision “within days” of the August 4, 2014, VA 

rating decision, but the Board had not yet addressed his

left wrist appeal as of the filing of his brief to this Court. 

Id. at 2. We once again note that mandamus is not a 

substitute for an appeal.

Case: 15-7060 Document: 14-2 Page: 6 Filed: 07/07/2015
EL MALIK v. MCDONALD 7

Mr. El Malik also argues that because the VA only offered an apology for the seven-year delay, denying mandamus will “send the incorrect signal and cause more 

delays in veteran’s disability claims.” Pet. Br. at 3. While 

we are sympathetic to Mr. El Malik’s grievance, in this 

case we defer to the Veterans Court discretion in refusing 

to issue mandamus. See Kerr, 426 U.S. at 403. We therefore hold that Mr. El Malik has not shown that mandamus is warranted as a matter of law.

D 

Mr. El Malik argues that the Veterans Court failed to 

order the VA to adjudicate his claim for an increased 

rating for his previously-rated low back strain, which was 

part of his September 28, 2007, appeal to the Board. Mr. 

El Malik admits that his low back strain claim was not 

part of his petition for writ of mandamus, but asserts that 

he notified the Veterans Court of the claim after reviewing the Secretary’s response. Mr. El Malik also asserts 

that, after the Veterans Court issued its decision on his 

left wrist claim and additional A&A claim, he filed a 

motion for panel review on the two claims.

The record indicates that Mr. El Malik’s low back 

strain claim was not properly in front of the Veterans 

Court. Mr. El Malik first mentioned his low back strain 

in one sentence of his April 2014 reply to the Veterans 

Court. R.A. 88 (“Mr. Gipe concluded . . . the folder was 

transferred to the [Board] on March 31, 2014, with no 

decision on the left wrist, back, and Aid and Attendance 

(A&A).” (emphasis added)). This sentence merely summarized the declaration submitted by the Secretary in 

support of its response to the Veterans Court, in which

the declarant enumerated the portions of the claims file 

“pertinent to the issue of service connection for a left wrist 

disability.” R.A. 151. Nothing in this sentence or in Mr. 

El Malik’s reply, when liberally construed, can reasonably 

be interpreted as requesting the Veterans Court to add 

Case: 15-7060 Document: 14-2 Page: 7 Filed: 07/07/2015
8 EL MALIK v. MCDONALD

his low back strain claim to his petition. Moreover, with 

limited exceptions not relevant here, Mr. El Malik cannot 

raise new issues in his reply brief. Jackson v. Nicholson, 

124 F. App’x 646, 649 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“It is a general 

rule of appellate procedure that an appellant waives 

issues or arguments raised for the first time in a reply 

brief.” (citations omitted)).

We similarly refuse to find that Mr. El Malik’s motion 

for reconsideration of the Veterans Court’s denial of 

mandamus properly put his low back strain claim in front 

of the Veterans Court for adjudication. 

E 

We have examined Mr. El Malik’s remaining arguments and find them beyond the scope of our jurisdiction. 

For example, Mr. El Malik challenges the Veterans 

Court’s decision not to impose sanctions against the VA

under 38 U.S.C. § 7265. The Veterans Court declined to 

sanction the VA because it determined that “there is no 

evidence of noncompliance with the rule or order and, 

once the Secretary recognized the oversight, the RO and 

Secretary were reasonably diligent and energetic in 

attempting to accomplish their duty.” Order at *3. The 

Veterans Court’s determination is factual in nature, and 

thus unreviewable by this Court. 

Mr. El Malik also asserts the Veterans Court deprived 

him of a property interest without due process of law 

when it accepted the Secretary’s statements that Mr. El 

Malik’s claims have been resolved. This assertion merely 

places a “due process” label on the merits of the claim, 

and is not a separate constitutional contention. See Helfer 

v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[The] 

characterization of that question as constitutional in 

nature does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack.”). As explained above, we see no error in the 

Veterans Court’s conclusion that the VA had resolved Mr. 

El Malik’s claims.

Case: 15-7060 Document: 14-2 Page: 8 Filed: 07/07/2015
EL MALIK v. MCDONALD 9

Finally, Mr. El Malik requests the “opportunity to file 

a petition for attorney fees, costs and expenses in this 

action, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B),” which is 

commonly referred to as The Equal Access to Justice Act 

(EAJA). Pet. Br. at 8. EAJA fees and expenses, however, 

must be applied for “within thirty days of final judgment 

in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). As there has 

been no final decision in the instant appeal, Mr. El Malik’s request is premature. We also caution Mr. El Malik 

that, once the instant appeal becomes final, EAJA fees are 

not recoverable by pro se litigants. Groves v. Shinseki, 

541 F. App’x 981, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (also denying EAJA 

expenses for time spent as an “expert witness,” for “computer/legal research,” and for “photocopying expenses”).

Accordingly, we hold that the Veterans Court did not 

abuse its discretion or otherwise commit legal error in 

denying Mr. El Malik’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

We also hold that Mr. El Malik’s remaining claims are 

outside of this Court’s jurisdiction and are dismissed.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the order of the Veterans Court denying the 

petition for mandamus and dismiss in part Mr. El Malik’s 

appeal.

AFFIRMED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-7060 Document: 14-2 Page: 9 Filed: 07/07/2015