NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HENRY M. GARCIA, JR.,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1772

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 20-4007, Judge Grant Jaquith.

______________________ 

Decided: March 9, 2023

______________________ 

HENRY M. GARCIA, JR., San Antonio, TX, pro se.

 BRYAN MICHAEL BYRD, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, LOREN MISHA 

PREHEIM. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Case: 22-1772 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 03/09/2023
2 GARCIA v. MCDONOUGH

PER CURIAM. 

Henry M. Garcia appeals a decision of the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) rejecting his motion for en banc review as untimely. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Garcia is a U.S. Army veteran. See Appx1.1 In 

2019, the Veterans Court in a single-judge decision rejected 

an appeal from Mr. Garcia of a 2018 Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. See Garcia v. Wilkie, U.S. Vet. App. No. 18-

5265 (Aug. 16, 2019) (“Garcia I”). On reconsideration, that 

court issued a panel decision upholding the earlier singlejudge decision. See Garcia v. Wilkie, U.S. Vet. App. No. 18-

5265 (Nov. 12, 2019) (“Garcia II”). The court entered judgment, and the mandate followed. 

Mr. Garcia filed a separate notice of appeal to the Veterans Court on June 6, 2020, that appeared to appeal Garcia II; on the Secretary’s motion, the Veterans Court—in 

another single-judge decision—dismissed that appeal on 

res judicata grounds on May 27, 2021. Garcia v. 

McDonough, No. 20-4007, 2021 WL 2142624, at *2 (Vet. 

App. May 27, 2021) (“Garcia III”). Mr. Garcia sought fullcourt review of Garcia III, and the judge assigned to his 

case rejected the request because the Veterans Court’s 

rules do not allow a motion for full-court review directly 

from a single-judge decision. The judge afforded Mr. Garcia an additional opportunity to seek reconsideration of the 

decision by a panel of judges, which Mr. Garcia did on 

July 24, 2021.

The Veterans Court granted Mr. Garcia’s motion for a 

panel decision on December 21, 2021, and the assigned 

1 “Appx” refers to the appendix attached to the government’s informal response brief.

Case: 22-1772 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 03/09/2023
GARCIA v. MCDONOUGH 3

panel adopted the single-judge decision as its own. No 

party sought full-court review within the time prescribed 

in Rule 35(c) of the Rules of the Veterans Court, and the 

court entered its judgment on January 6, 2022. On January 18, 2022, Mr. Garcia filed a motion seeking full-court 

review, and on March 11, 2022, the court informed Mr. 

Garcia that his motion was untimely.

Mr. Garcia filed a notice of appeal to this court on 

March 21, 2022. Appx8, Appx11. The government moved 

to dismiss the appeal, and we granted the motion in part, 

agreeing that Mr. Garcia “cannot appeal from the Veterans 

Court’s judgment and decision on his benefits claim because his appeal would be untimely.” Appx11. We were, 

however, “not yet prepared to dismiss this appeal” because 

“Mr. Garcia filed his notice of appeal within 60 days from 

the Veterans Court’s rejection of his motion for en banc review.” Id. Accordingly, “to the extent that action is an appealable decision, . . . Mr. Garcia’s notice of appeal could be 

liberally construed as seeking to appeal that action to this 

court.” Id. We address that question now.

DISCUSSION

In appeals from the Veterans Court, we “decide all relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). 

We “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to 

the facts of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2).

We do not have jurisdiction to hear Mr. Garcia’s appeal 

of the Veterans Court’s decision to reject his motion for en 

banc review because it did not involve the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation. “[A]n interpretation of 

a statute or regulation occurs when its meaning is elaborated by the court.” Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 

1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Because the Veterans Court did not 

elaborate upon the meaning of any statute or regulation 

and, instead, straightforwardly applied its rules to the 

Case: 22-1772 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 03/09/2023
4 GARCIA v. MCDONOUGH

facts—the timing of its decision and the timing of Mr. Garcia’s motion—Mr. Garcia’s appeal is outside our jurisdiction. See Arnesen v. Principi, 300 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. 

Cir. 2002) (dismissing as factual a challenge to a Veterans 

Court decision based on Veterans Court Rule 35(c)).

Mr. Garcia argues that he “raised a constitutional 

question where he asserts that he was denied notice of or 

opportunity to challenge the Veterans Court[’s] correct understanding of the governing law.” Appellant’s Informal 

Br. 2. If Mr. Garcia is suggesting that the Veterans Court 

denied him the opportunity to seek en banc review, that is 

incorrect: the assigned judge gave Mr. Garcia ample opportunity to seek reconsideration of his decision, and Mr. Garcia does not argue that he could not seek en banc review of 

the panel’s decision adopting the single-judge decision 

within the relevant time period. See, e.g., Appx7, Appx11.

Mr. Garcia also suggests that he was denied procedural 

due process. See Appellant’s Informal Br. 1–2. But that 

argument is both unsupported and undeveloped, so we cannot evaluate it and must deem it waived. See, e.g., 

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 

1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Mr. Garcia’s appeal does not raise issues of law, so it is 

outside our jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Garcia’s other arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. We dismiss Mr. Garcia’s appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 22-1772 Document: 22 Page: 4 Filed: 03/09/2023