NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SHIRLEY M. ISAAC,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2023-1755

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 22-6523, Judge Amanda L. Meredith, Judge Grant Jaquith, Judge Joseph L. Toth.

______________________

Decided: February 5, 2024

______________________

SHIRLEY M. ISAAC, Dallas, TX, pro se.

 PATRICK ANGULO, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

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

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY.

______________________

Case: 23-1755 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2024
2 ISAAC v. MCDONOUGH

Before CUNNINGHAM, BRYSON, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Shirley M. Isaac appeals from an order of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans 

Court”) denying a petition for writ of mandamus and a subsequent order denying full court review. Isaac v. 

McDonough, No. 22-6523, 2022 WL 17951386 (Vet. App. 

Dec. 27, 2022) (“Petition Order”); S. App. 2 (denial of full 

court review). In her mandamus petition, Ms. Isaac asked 

the Veterans Court to compel the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (“VA”) to act on her November 2021 disagreement 

with a June 2021 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) 

decision. Petition Order at *1. For the reasons discussed 

below, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

I. BACKGROUND

Ms. Isaac is the surviving spouse of veteran James N. 

Isaac. Petition Order at *1. In June 2021, the Board dismissed motions to revise, on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”), two prior VA decisions finding that 

the Appellant could not be substituted for her late husband 

because no claim remained pending with the VA at the 

time of his death. Id. at *1. In July and November 2021, 

Ms. Isaac filed two CUE motions expressing her disagreement with the June 2021 decision.1

1 The Veterans Court refers to a November 2021 filing styled as a “CUE Appeal.” Petition Order at *1. Before 

the Veterans Court, the Secretary referred to both a July 

2021 CUE motion and an amended December 2021 CUE 

motion. Id. It appears that the November 2021 CUE filing 

is the same as the amended December 2021 CUE motion. 

See Appellee’s Informal Br. 5. We generally refer to the 

filings as the July and November 2021 CUE motions.

Case: 23-1755 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2024
ISAAC v. MCDONOUGH 3

On November 3, 2022, Ms. Isaac filed with the Veterans Court a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that 

the court compel the VA to act on her November 2021 CUE 

motion regarding the June 2021 Board decision. Petition 

Order at *1. In the Secretary’s response on December 9, 

2022, he apologized for the delay in acknowledging and processing Ms. Isaac’s CUE motions. Id. He also attached a

letter from the Board to Ms. Isaac dated December 5, 2022, 

“advising her that VA had received her motions and docketed them, and that the Board would consider them in the 

order in which they were received.” Id. As to the writ, 

“[t]he Secretary argue[d] that VA has taken appropriate actions on [Ms. Isaac’s] CUE motions and, as such, she has 

not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to a writ 

of mandamus she seeks.” Id. at *2 (internal quotation

marks omitted and cleaned up). 

On December 27, 2022, the Veterans Court issued a

single-judge order denying the petition. Id. at *3. In this 

order, the court considered whether the writ justified the 

“drastic” remedy of mandamus. Id. at *2 (quoting Kerr v. 

U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976)). Because the petitioner alleged unreasonable delay by the VA, the court

evaluated her petition under the TRAC factors.2 Id.

2 The TRAC factors refer to the factors discussed in 

Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. F.C.C., 

750 F.2d 70, 80 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“TRAC”). Under the 

TRAC factors, “(1) the time agencies take to make decisions 

must be governed by a ‘rule of reason;’” (2) Congress “may 

supply content for this rule of reason” by providing a timetable for the agency to act; (3) “delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less 

tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake;” 

(4) “the court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing 

Case: 23-1755 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 02/05/2024
4 ISAAC v. MCDONOUGH

Although the Veterans Court found the third and fifth

TRAC factors “would generally weigh in favor of” Ms. Isaac, 

the court ultimately found that the other factors weighed 

against the issuance of a writ. Id. at *3. As a result, the

Veterans Court denied the petition. Id.

On February 8, 2023, a three-judge panel adopted the 

December order as “the decision of the Court.” S. App. 3–

4. Ms. Isaac then filed a motion for full court review. See

S. App. 2. In an order dated March 15, 2023, the court also

denied this motion, finding that Ms. Isaac failed to demonstrate that review was “necessary to secure or maintain 

uniformity of the Court’s decisions or to resolve a question 

of exceptional importance.” Id. (quoting Vet. App. R. 35(c)). 

The court then entered judgment in this case. S. App. 1. 

Ms. Isaac timely appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 

(Fed. Cir. 2010). We may review “all relevant questions of 

law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory 

provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). Unless the appeal presents a constitutional issue, 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.” 

38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). As we explain below, we are without jurisdiction to address the issues raised by Ms. Isaac’s 

appeal. 

priority;” (5) “the court should also take into account the 

nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay;” and 

(6) the court does not need to find impropriety to determine 

“agency action is ‘unreasonably delayed.’” TRAC, 750 F.2d 

at 80. In Martin v. O’Rourke, the Federal Circuit adopted 

the TRAC factors to assess mandamus petitions asserting 

unreasonable delay. 891 F.3d 1338, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Case: 23-1755 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 02/05/2024
ISAAC v. MCDONOUGH 5

A.

First, we address Ms. Isaac’s appeal as to the December 

order denying her mandamus petition. In Beasley v. 

Shinseki, we explained that we have “jurisdiction to review 

the [Veterans Court]’s decision whether to grant a mandamus petition” when the Appellant “raises a non-frivolous 

legal question.” 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We 

may not consider a challenge to a factual determination or 

the application of law to the facts of Ms. Isaac’s case. Id. 

Notably, we do not discern any non-frivolous legal questions that would give us jurisdiction to review the denial of 

mandamus here. 

The authority cited by Ms. Isaac that explicitly addresses mandamus also does not demonstrate any error in 

the underlying order. For example, Ms. Isaac cites Wolfe 

v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 1 (2019), rev’d sub nom. Wolfe v. 

McDonough, 28 F.4th 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Appellant’s 

Informal Br. 2. The petition in Wolfe raised a legal question of whether a regulation was contrary to a particular 

statutory provision. 32 Vet. App. at 34–35. In Ms. Isaac’s 

case, there is no colorable argument that the Veterans 

Court’s analysis was contrary to a statute or other authority. 

Much of the authority Ms. Isaac cites has no clear relationship to the denial of her mandamus petition. She cites 

a number of regulatory provisions and case law establishing that claimants like her have the ability to seek review 

of VA decisions based on CUE. See Appellant’s Informal 

Br. 1 (first citing 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a); and then citing 38 

C.F.R. § 20.1403(c)); Appellant’s Informal Reply Br. 3 (citing George v. McDonough, 142 S. Ct. 1953, 1957 (2022)). 

However, the regulations and George do not suggest that 

the Veterans Court committed legal error in its analysis or 

support that the petition for mandamus raises a non-frivolous legal question. 

Case: 23-1755 Document: 24 Page: 5 Filed: 02/05/2024
6 ISAAC v. MCDONOUGH

Ms. Isaac also cites legal authority supporting the 

proposition that the Veterans Court has jurisdiction to review a decision of the Board. See, e.g., Appellant’s Informal 

Br. 1 (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a)); id. at 2 (citing In re Cox, 

10 Vet. App. 361, 371 (1997), as amended (Sept. 4, 1997), 

vacated sub nom. Cox v. West, 149 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 

1998)). But the Veterans Court did not determine that it 

lacked jurisdiction to address Ms. Isaac’s petition. Petition 

Order at *2–3. Rather, the court determined that the majority of TRAC factors did not support the issuance of a 

writ. Id. at *3. 

Ms. Isaac also asserts that the December order conflicts with the October 2020 Veterans Court decision involving her CUE claim. See Appellant’s Informal Reply Br. 

3 (citing Isaac v. Wilkie, No. 19-8692, 2020 WL 6051167

(Vet. App. Oct. 14, 2020) (“October 2020 Decision”)). In that 

decision, the Veterans Court vacated the Board’s decision 

because it failed to adequately explain its reasoning and 

remanded to the Board with directions to “proceed expeditiously.” October 2020 Decision at *1, 5–6 (citation omitted). The Board responded by issuing a new order denying 

Ms. Isaac’s CUE motion in June 2021. S. App. 11; see also

S. App. 13 (discussing October Veterans Court decision).

Ms. Isaac may dispute whether the Board adequately complied with the 2020 decision in its June 2021 order. However, this 2020 Veterans Court decision does not provide 

any basis to challenge the denial of mandamus regarding

her subsequent CUE motion. 

Lastly, Ms. Isaac cites the Constitution in her briefing. 

Appellant’s Informal Br. 1–2; Appellant’s Informal Reply 

Br. 4. However, we lack jurisdiction over a “claim [that] is 

constitutional in name only,” like the one raised here. 

Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In 

sum, because Ms. Isaac does not raise any non-frivolous legal question challenging the denial of mandamus, Beasley, 

709 F.3d at 1158, we lack jurisdiction to address her disagreement with the December order.

Case: 23-1755 Document: 24 Page: 6 Filed: 02/05/2024
ISAAC v. MCDONOUGH 7

B.

Ms. Isaac also argues the Veterans Court erred in its

March 2023 order denying her motion for full court review 

of the December order. See Appellant’s Informal Br. 1–2; 

S. App. 2. Ms. Isaac argues full court review was warranted because the December order “failed to resolve a 

question of exceptional importance,” Appellant’s Informal 

Br. 2; “is contrary [to] . . . precedent,” id.; and is in conflict 

with the October 2020 decision, Appellant’s Informal Reply 

Br. 3 (citing October 2020 Decision). See Vet. App. R. 35(c)

(“Ordinarily [motions for full Court review] will not be 

granted unless such action is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions or to resolve a question of exceptional importance.”). 

However, Ms. Isaac again does not identify a question 

of law over which we have jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(d)(1). She does not challenge the legal standard the 

Veterans Court applied or argue that the court erred in its 

interpretation of that legal standard. See Appellants’ Informal Br. 2 (citing Vet. App. R. 35(c)). Rather, she appears 

to argue that the court erred in applying this standard. See 

id. We are without jurisdiction to review the application of 

this legal standard to the facts of Ms. Isaac’s case. See 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); Arnesen v. Principi, 300 F.3d 1353, 

1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding lack of jurisdiction to review a challenge to the Veterans Court’s denial of full court 

review). 

III. CONCLUSION

We have considered Ms. Isaac’s remaining arguments 

and find that none raises a non-frivolous legal question

over which we can assert jurisdiction. See Beasley, 709 

F.3d at 1158. For these reasons, we dismiss Ms. Isaac’s 

appeal.

DISMISSED

Case: 23-1755 Document: 24 Page: 7 Filed: 02/05/2024
8 ISAAC v. MCDONOUGH

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 23-1755 Document: 24 Page: 8 Filed: 02/05/2024