NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

______________________ 

2023-1732

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 22-4742, Judge Joseph L. Toth.

______________________ 

Decided: February 20, 2024

______________________ 

JOHN HASSAN, Center Moriches, NY, pro se. 

 MATNEY ELIZABETH ROLFE, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA 

M. MCCARTHY; RICHARD STEPHEN HUBER, Office of General 

Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Washington, DC. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 23-1732 Document: 21 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 granted the Secretary’s motion to dismiss his appeal 

in Hassan v. McDonough, No. 22-4742 (Vet. App. Feb. 9, 

2023), App. 1.* In his appeal to the Veterans Court, Mr.

Hassan sought to challenge the July 25, 2022 decision of 

the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that determined 

that the discontinuance of Veteran Readiness and Employment (“VR&E”) services to him under the provisions of 38 

U.S.C. Chapter 31 was improper. Id. The Veterans Court 

dismissed Mr. Hassan’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Mr. Hassan did not obtain an adverse, final decision 

from the Board. Id. at 1–2. The court explained that 38 

U.S.C. § 7266(a), its jurisdictional statute, requires that a 

Board decision be adverse for a claimant to obtain review 

by the Veterans Court. Id. at 1. Because the July 25, 2022 

Board decision was entirely favorable to Mr. Hassan, there 

was nothing for the court to review. Id. The court noted 

that, if Mr. Hassan was dissatisfied with the service provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs through the 

VR&E, he could seek review of those issues. Id. For the 

reasons stated below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

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, 

* “App.” citations are to the appendix filed with Respondent-Appellee’s Informal Response Brief, ECF No. 6.

Case: 23-1732 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 02/20/2024
HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH 3

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

We have reviewed the decision of the Veterans Court 

and have considered all the arguments raised by Mr. Hassan in his appeal of the court’s decision dismissing his appeal. Mr. Hassan does not argue that 38 U.S.C. § 7266 is 

invalid or was misinterpreted by the Veterans Court, nor 

does he raise any legitimate constitutional issues. Rather, 

it is clear that Mr. Hassan’s appeal boils down to a challenge to factual determinations concerning the feasibility 

of reinstating his computer training; and a challenge to the 

Veterans Court’s application of its jurisdictional statute to 

the facts of his case. Those are matters beyond our 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: 23-1732 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 02/20/2024