UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 03-1903

R

. E DW AR D B AT ES , P ETI TI ONER ,

V

.

ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , R ES PO NDE NT

.

Be fore FARL EY, I VERS, and STEI NB ERG, J

ud ge s.

O R D E R

On J uly 28, 2003, the petitioner was informed by a letter from the De partment of V eter ans Af fa ir s ( VAor

the De pa

rtme nt) Ge ne ra l Co un se l ( GC ) t hat th e Se c re tary

ha d can c e lle d h is

a c c re dit a tio n to re pr e se nt c la ima nts be fo re VA

. On Au g us t 6, 20 03 , th e pe tit ion e r, thr ou g h c ouns e l, filed with a VAreg ional office (RO) a Notice of Disag ree ment (NOD ) as to the Sec reta ry ' s decision. On Octobe r 20, 2003, the pe titioner, throug h counsel, filed in this Court a petition for e x traordina ry relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus. The petitioner re quests that this Court order the Sec reta ry to provide a Stateme nt of the Case ( SOC) in connection with his NOD. On October 28, 2003, the petitioner filed a

supplemental ver ified petition confirming that th e S ec re t ar y ref used to issue an SOC in t his matter.

On Octobe r 31, 2003, the Court orde red the Secre tary to f ile an answe r to the petition. On De c e mbe r 1 , 2 00 3, the Se c re tary fi le d h is a

ns we r a rg uin g that th e Court ' s a

uth or ity un de r t he Al l Wri ts A c t ( AWA ), 28 U. S.C. § 1 65 1( a ), do e s no t e xten d to the ma tte r ra ise d in t his pe tit ion

be c a us e such matter c ould never

result in a dec is i o n b y the B oard of Veter ans' Appea ls (Boa

rd or B VA). Acc ording ly , the Secr etar y urg es the Court to dismiss the petition for lac k of jurisdiction. Ba sed on the following analy sis
, t h e C ourt has conc luded that the issue of the petitioner' s challeng e to the termination of his ac cre ditation is not justiciable by the Boa rd, and thus the Court will dis miss the petition for lack of

jurisdiction.

Pur su a nt t o th e AWA , "[t ]he Sup re me Court a nd a ll co ur ts es ta bli sh e d by Ac t of

Con g re ss

may iss ue a ll w ri ts n e c e ssa

ry or a pp ro pr ia te in a id o f t

he ir re sp e c tiv e jur isd ic tio ns a nd a g re e a ble to the usag es and pr inciples of law." 28 U.S.C. § 1 6 5 1 (a ). T he Supreme Court has held that " the exercise of

this [ AWA] power

. . . extends to t he potential jurisdiction of the appellate court whe re

an app eal is no t th en pen di ng bu t may be lat er perf ect ed. " FTC v. Dean Foods Co. , 384 U.S. 597, 6 0 3 (1 9 6 6 ) ( ci t i n g Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21, 25 (1943)). The Act, howe ver, empower s a cour

t to act only

"in a id of [it s] . . . j urisdiction[ ]", 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). I t cannot be used t o expand the s tatutory jurisdiction of a court. See Cox v . W est , 149 F. 3d 1360, 1363 ( Fe d. Cir. 1998) [hereina fter Cox ] (ex pressly aff irming A WA holdings of In re Fe e Agree ment of Cox
,2

10 Vet.App. 361, 371 (1997) [hereinaf ter In re Cox ], and stating that "[i]t is well established that the AWA do e s n ot e xpa nd

a c ourt ' s juri sd ic tio n" ); se e als o 19 J A M ES W M

. M O O R E E T AL ., M O O RE ' S F ED ER A L P RACT I CE ¶ 204.02[4] (3d ed. 1997). The AWA doe s not e x pand a co u rt 's general jurisdiction, but rather is to be u sed only for the limited purpose of protec ting its potential jurisdiction. See R oche, 31 9 U .S. a t 26 ; Cox, supra.

Th is C ourt

" sh a ll h a ve su c h a ssi sta

nc e in t he c a rr y ingou t of

its lawf ul w ri t . . . a s is a va ila

ble
to a cour t of the United States." 38 U.S.C. § 7265(b). I t may issue writs in ai d of its jurisdiction under the AWA. See Cox , 1 49 F . 3 d at 13 64 ; In re Cox
, 1 0 V e t

. A p p

. at 3 6 7 -6 9

. T h i s C o u rt 's jurisdiction under cha

pter 72 of title 38, U.S. Code, is l i m i t ed t o revie wing final dec isions of the Boa rd, see 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a); there fore , if the Court' s g ranting of the instant petition could lead
to a B VAde c isi on

ov e r w hic h th e Court

wo uld ha ve jur isd ic tio n, the Cour t w ou ld p os se ss jurisdiction to is sue a wr i t of mandamus. See In re Cox , 1 0 V e t.A pp . a t 37 0; see also In re Fee Agreem ent of W

ick , 40 F.3d 367, 373 (Fe d. Cir. 1994) (holding that the U.S. Court of Appea ls for Veter ans Claims has jurisdiction under AWA wher e it would otherwise " be pre vented or frustrated fr om e xer c isi ng its statut ori ly g ra nte d ju ri sd ic tio n o ve r a

B oa rd de c isi on bu t " is n ot v e ste d w ith orig inal jurisdiction"). Thus, w here VA fails or refuses to adjudicate a claim prese nted, the Court has the a uthority to dir ect the Sec reta

ry to act on that cla im. See Cox and In re Cox , both su pr a ; see also 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(2) (" [T] he Court of [Appeals for Vetera ns Claims]
, to the extent necessa ry to its decision and when prese nted, shall . . . compel ac tion of the Secre tary unlawfully

withheld or

unrea sonably

delay ed." ). Howe ver, if the matter is one that c ould never come be fore the B oard, a

nd
eventua lly

to this C ourt, then we are without jurisdiction to e ntertain a writ. Consequently , in the instant case, unless the Court's g ranting of the pe tition – ordering the Secr etar y to provide an SOC on the questi on whether the petitioner should continue to be a ccr edited to re prese nt claimants befor e the B VA – could lea d to a Boa rd decision on that question, this Court is wit hout jurisdiction to i ssue the writ.

The Sec reta

ry i s re s p o n s i b l e f

o r t h e r ec o gn i t i o n o f r ep re s en t at i ves of or g anizations, indi vidual
ag ents, and a ttorney s "in the pr epar ation, prese ntation, and prosec ution of claims under la ws

a dmi nis te re d by the Se c re tary ." 38 U. S.C. § 5 90 2(a); see 38 U.S.C. §§ 5903, 5904; 38 C.F.R. § 14.629 (2003) ( providing require ments for accr editation of represe ntatives, ag ents, and attorney s). Fur

thermore , it is wit hin the Secre tary 's au thority to "suspend or

exclude from fur

ther
p r a c ti c e b e f

o r e th e D e p a rtm e n t a n y a g e n t o r a tt o r n e y [w h o , in te r a li a , ] ( 1 ) h a s e n g a g e d in any unlawful, unprof

essional, or dishonest pra ctice; . . . or (5) ha s in any

manner dece ived, m i s l ed , or threa tened a

ny actua l or prospec tive claimant." 38 U.S.C. § 5904(b)(1), ( 5).

Th e Se c re tary has bro ad aut ho ri ty un de r 3 8 U .S. C. § 59 04 (a ) a nd (b ) t o r e g ulate repr esenta tional activities by attorney s in connec ti o n

w it h r e c o g n iz in g

th e m f o r c la ims repre sentation befor e the De partment a

nd suspending them from such pra ctice f or eng ag ing in c erta in specified conduct ( including violation of any laws administere d by

VA). This a

uthority clea rly permits VA to require an ag ent or a ttorney to satisfy

cer tain basic statutory

qualifica t i o n s (e

. g., g ood moral char acte r, training , and compe tence ) and f urther pe rmits the Secre tary to require an ag ent or attorney to ag ree to follow the law g overning repr esenta tion, including suspension and te rminati o n of3

acc reditation. 38 U.S.C. § 5904(a), ( b). The Secre tary has promulg ated r eg ulations gove rning the termination of ac cre ditation of ag ents and attorney s; these re g ulations include the rig ht to notice and a hearing

. 38 C.F.R. § 14.633 (2003). The recor d in such matters is forw arde d to the VAGC for a decision, and those de cisions are final. 38 C.F.R. § 14.633(f ), (g ).

Th e pe tit ion e r o ff

e rs no c on vin c ingsu g g e sti on a s to ho w this Cou

rt c ou ld h a ve a

uth or ity to revie w his petition. R el y i ng on Cox, su pr a , h e a rgue s th a t th is C ourt ha s ju ri sd ic tio n to he a r h is
pe tit ion be c a us e the Se c re tary ' s d e c isi on to c a nc e l hi s a c c re dit a tio n is based up on 38 U. S.C. § 5 90 4( b) , " a

law tha t a ff

e c ts the pr ov isi on of be ne fi ts by the Se c re tary to v e te ra ns or the de pe nd e nts

or su rv ivo rs of ve te ra

ns ." Pe tit ion a t 11 -1 4 (q

uo tin g 38 U. S.C. § 5 11 (a )) ; see Cox
, 149 F.3d at 1365.

The pe titioner' s arg ument is unavailing

. He essentially argues that the oper ative sec tions for Boa rd re view o v er t h i s matter ar e 38 U.S.C. § 7104 in conjunction with 38 U.S.C. § 511(a). Pur su a nt t o 3 8 U .S. C. § 71 04 (a ), the B oa rd has juri sd ic tio n o ve r m a tte rs a ri sin g un de r 3 8 U .S. C. § 511(a)

. Specifica lly , section 7104(a ) provides: " All questions in a matter which unde r sec tion 51 1( a ) o f t

his tit le is s ub

je c t to de c isi on by the Se c re tary sh a ll be su bje c t to on e re vie w on

a pp e a l to the Secr etar

y . Final de cisions on such appe als shall be made by the Board." I n turn, section 511(a ) provides: " The Sec reta

ry shall dec i d e al l q u est ions of law and f act ne cessa

ry to a dec ision by

the Se c re ta ry u n d e r

a l a w t h a ta f

f e c t s t h e p r o v i s i o n o f

b e n e f i t s b y t h e S e c r e t a r

y t o v e t e r a n s o r

to depende nt s o r survivors of vetera ns." 38 U .S.C. § 511(a). Section 7104 thus confe rs jurisdiction on the B oard ove r questions arising under se ction 511(a) , and a c laimant may in tur n ap p ea l an adver se B oard r

uling to this Court under 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a)

. See Cox
, 14 9 F .3 d a t 13 64 ; In re Cox
, 10 Vet.App. at 372-73. This Court in In re Cox h el d t h at "s ec t i o n 5 9 0 4 (d ) i s a s t at u t e 'a f f e c t [ i n g] th e pro vi si on s o f ben efi ts ' by VA as referr ed t o i n s ect io n 5 11 (a). " In re Cox , 10 Vet.App. at 372; see Cox , 149 F.3d at 1365 (ag ree ing w ith this Court's de termination).

T h e c ir c u ms ta nces in In r e Coxare distinguishable f rom those now bef

ore us. In re Cox inv olv e d th e int e rp re ta tio n o f 3 8 U .S. C. § 59 04 (d ), wh ic h g ive s th e S e c re tary the a uth or ity to wi thh old a po rt ion of pa st- du e be ne fi ts o the rw ise du e to a VA c la ima nt an d to pay

tho se wi thh e ld benef its to an attorney , pursuant to an other wise valid fe e agree ment. In re Cox , 10 Vet.App. at 372; see Cox , 149 F.3d at 1365. I n In re Cox , this Court ex plained:

Had the Sec reta

ry , for instanc e, withheld mo re than was called f or under the provision of an otherwise va lid fee a g ree ment and deliver ed that amount to an attorney , the ' provision of be ne fi ts' to t

he ve te ra n w ou ld p la inl y

be ' a ff e c t[e d]' , an d th e vete ra

n w ou ld h a ve re c ours e befor e [a VARO ]
, t h e BVA, a nd this Court (as long a s all of the other jurisdictional require ments were met).

In re Cox , 1 0 V e t.A

pp . at 37 2. Se c tio n 5 90 4( d) is c le a rl y a law t hat a ff e c ts t he pr ov isi on

of be ne fi ts by the Se c re tary

. Se c tio n 590 4( b) , on th e oth e r h a nd , is a law that pe rt a ins to a

de c isi on to t e rm inate the ac cre ditation of an attorne y based on c erta in attorney action, including the alleg ed violation of section 5904(c )(1) rela ting to char g ing and receiving fee s from veterans a nd section 5905(1) rela ting to soliciti ng and contr acting for illeg al fe es. Section 5904(b) say s nothing a bout VA bene fits. For4

e xamp le , it

do e s n ot g ive the Se c re tary a uth or ity to al te r the a mou nt of be ne fi ts that V A c la ima nts

are to rec eive. Whether an attorney ' s acc reditation is te rminated does not aff ect the pr ovision of VA benef its be cause VA benef

its may be aw arde d reg ardle ss of whethe r a c laimant is repre sented by an attorney

. Moreove r, as noted by this Court, "[s]ection 511(a) bases the Sec reta ry ' s jurisdiction not
upon an actual

eff ect upon a particular

claimant' s benef

i t s but upon whether the law to be int e rp re te d is on e that ' aff e c ts th e pro vi si on of [ VA] ben efi ts '." In re Cox , 10 Vet.App. at 373 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) a nd adding emphasis). Othe r than c iting to Cox
, su pr a , the petitioner fails to explain how section 5904(b) a ffe cts the provision of VA be nefits.

The provisions of section 5904 also do not provide the Boa rd with jurisdiction to review the petitioner' s claim. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5904, the Board has limit ed jurisdi ction to revie w the

rea sonablene ss of a fe e and to r educe the fe e. 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c) (2). Our jurisdiction under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5904 is s trictly limit ed to re view of B VA dec i s i o n s re g arding fee

a g re e me nts . T here is no con comi tant s ta tut or y or re g ulator y ba sis fo r t

he B oa rd or thi s Co ur

t to

rev i ew an attorne y ' s acc reditation or ter mination of acc reditation. Rather , by regulation, the Se c retary has deleg a te d to the VA GC the a uth or ity to t e rm inate a n a c c re dit a tio n. 38 C.F .R. § 14.633(g ). Nowhe re is the B VA included in this sche me. Moreove r, no imag inative re ading of 38 U. S.C. § 59 04 c ou ld t

ra ns mut e the pe tit ion e r' s d isp ute wi th V A c on c e rn ingthe te rm inatio n o f h is attorney acc reditation into a dispute conce rning a specific fee ag ree ment over which this Court m ight
eventua lly

exercise jurisdiction.

I n v ie w o f t

he fo re g oin g a na ly sis , the Cou rt c on c lud e s th a t, u

nd e r t he c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

his

ca s e, t h e p et i t i o n er

h as n o ts h o wn t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n b y t h e V AG C t o t er m i n at e t h e p et i t i o n er 's

a c c re dit a tio n und e r s e c tio n 590 4( b) is a de c isi on un de r a law that " a ff

e c ts the pr ov isi on

of be ne fi ts by th e Se c r e ta

r y to v e te r a n s o r th e d e p e n d e n ts o r s u r v iv o r s o f v e te r a n s

. " 3 8 U

. S. C. § 511(a)

. Acc ording ly , it is not a matter subject t o revie w by the Board, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a), a nd is thus not a matter over which t his Court could pot entially obtain jurisdiction under sec tion 7252(a).

On c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is

OR DE RED that th e pe tit ion fo r e xtra or din a ry re lie f in the natur e of a wr it o f m a nd a mus is DI SMI SSED for lack of

jurisdiction.

DA TE D: F e br

ua ry 19 , 2 00 4 PER CU RI AM

.