NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOHN HASSAN,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2023-1832

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 22-6701, Chief Judge Margaret C. 

Bartley.

______________________ 

Decided: February 20, 2024

______________________ 

JOHN HASSAN, Center Moriches, NY, pro se. 

 ANNE DELMARE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

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

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 23-1832 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 02/20/2024
2 HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH

Before PROST, SCHALL, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

John Hassan appeals the order of the United States 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) 

that denied his petition for extraordinary relief in the form 

of a writ of mandamus. Hassan v. McDonough, No. 22-

6701 (Vet. App. Feb. 13, 2023), App. 1.* For the reasons set 

forth below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

I 

This appeal arises out of what appears to be a longrunning dispute between Mr. Hassan and the Department 

of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). The dispute came to the Veterans Court on October 27, 2022, when Mr. Hassan petitioned the court to compel the VA to assist with plumbing 

repairs in his home. App. 1. In support of his petition, Mr. 

Hassan alleged that the VA would not respond, or respond 

appropriately, to his calls for help. Id. On December 2, 

2022, the court ordered the Secretary to respond to Mr. 

Hassan’s petition. Doing so, the Secretary stated that, between 2012 and 2016, the VA had attempted to assist Mr. 

Hassan with necessary plumbing repairs so that he could 

receive vocational rehabilitation and educational services 

in his home, but that Mr. Hassan had declined to cooperate 

in the effort. Id. at 1–2. On December 29, 2022, Mr. Hassan submitted correspondence to the Veterans Court. In it, 

he stated that the Secretary’s response was inaccurate and 

that he had never refused the VA’s services. Id. at 2.

* “App.” citations are to the appendix filed with Respondent-Appellee’s Informal Response Brief, ECF No. 7. 

Case: 23-1832 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 02/20/2024
HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH 3

In its February 13, 2023 Order, the Veterans Court determined that Mr. Hassan had failed to demonstrate entitlement to a writ of mandamus. Id. Rejecting Mr. Hassan’s 

claims to the contrary, the court found that the VA is willing to assist Mr. Hassan with plumbing repairs in his home 

but is unable to do so because Mr. Hassan has refused to 

remove extreme clutter, including boxes piled to the ceiling 

that prevent access. Id. The court concluded:

Ultimately, Mr. Hassan’s assertion that VA is refusing to facilitate repairs and will not return his 

calls is contradicted by the evidence provided by 

the Secretary—and Mr. Hassan himself—demonstrating that VA has been ready to assist Mr. Hassan with plumbing repairs for more than a decade, 

that it is currently actively engaged with Mr. Hassan and continuing to offer services, and that it is 

Mr. Hassan who is refusing to facilitate repairs and 

who has declined VA’s assistance. . . . [U]nder the 

circumstances present here, the Court concludes 

that Mr. Hassan has not demonstrated a clear and 

indisputable right to a writ or that a writ is warranted because he refused VA’s assistance and prevented access to the areas of his home in which 

repairs are needed. 

Id. at 2–3. Accordingly, the Veterans Court denied Mr. 

Hassan’s petition. Id. at 3.

II

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We have 

jurisdiction to decide an appeal insofar as it presents a 

challenge to the court’s decision regarding a rule of law, including a decision about the interpretation or validity of 

any statute or regulation. Id. § 7292(a), (d)(1). However, 

we lack jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a factual 

determination or a challenge to the application of a law or 

regulation to the facts of a particular case, unless the 

Case: 23-1832 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 02/20/2024
4 HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH

appeal presents a constitutional issue. Id. § 7292(d)(2). 

Although we possess “jurisdiction to review the [Veterans 

Court’s] decision whether to grant a mandamus petition 

that raises a non-frivolous legal question,” and although we 

may determine whether the veteran “has satisfied the legal 

standard for issuing the writ,” we may not “review the factual merits of the veteran’s claim.” Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 

F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

We have reviewed the decision of the Veterans Court 

and have considered the arguments raised by Mr. Hassan 

in his appeal. Based upon the part of the Veterans Court’s 

decision that we have quoted above, however, it is clear 

that the court denied Mr. Hassan’s petition based solely 

upon what it found to be the facts of the case. Specifically, 

the court determined that, based upon those facts, Mr. 

Hassan had failed to establish entitlement to a writ of mandamus. Mr. Hassan disputes the court’s determination,

but he does so only by challenging the court’s findings of 

fact. He thus presents a claim beyond our jurisdiction.

Indeed, we have consistently refused to exercise jurisdiction in appeals of denials of a writ of mandamus by the 

Veterans Court when the appeals challenge only factual 

determinations or the application of law to fact. See Fermin v. McDonough, No. 2023-1482, 2023 WL 6994232, at 

*2–3 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2023) (dismissing an appeal of the 

denial of a petition for writ of mandamus as it related to 

challenges to factual determinations or the law as applied 

to the facts); Hooper v. McDonough, No. 2022-1738, 2022 

WL 4091865, at *2–3 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2022) (dismissing 

an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the veteran’s 

arguments “merely raise issues about factual findings and 

the application of a settled (and un-challenged) legal standard to the facts of this case”); McLean v. Wilkie, 780 F. 

App’x 892, 895 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (dismissing an appeal presenting only issues challenging factual determinations and 

the application of law to fact); Peet v. Shulkin, 686 F. App’x 

914, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[E]ven if Mr. Peet addressed the 

Case: 23-1832 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 02/20/2024
HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH 5

Veterans Court’s findings, we could not review them. The 

findings in question involve both findings of fact . . . and an 

application of law to disputed facts.”); Spear v. McDonald, 

586 F. App’x 591, 592 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[W]hether Mr. 

Spear satisfied the requirements for a writ of mandamus is 

a challenge to the Veterans Court’s application of law to 

facts, over which we have no jurisdiction.”). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we lack jurisdiction to adjudicate Mr. Hassan’s appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 23-1832 Document: 18 Page: 5 Filed: 02/20/2024