NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DAVID ADEYEMI ADEYI,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7033

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-3237, Judge Margaret C. 

Bartley.

______________________ 

Decided: April 13, 2015

______________________ 

DAVID ADEYEMI ADEYI, Washington, DC, pro se. 

COURTNEY D. ENLOW, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., 

MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.; MEGHAN D. ALPHONSO, DAVID J.

BARRANS, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 
2 ADEYI v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before DYK, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denied David Adeyi’s petition for extraordinary relief in the form of 

a writ of mandamus. Mr. Adeyi appeals. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Adeyi is an Army veteran of the Gulf War Era. 

On September 25, 2014, he filed a “petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus” with the 

Veterans Court. R.A. 2. He alleged that the Houston 

regional office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA) was “violating various federal laws and the constitutional rights of veterans . . . by working with a nonprofit 

organization named The Mission Continues” in a research 

program involving Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 

(PTSD). Id. As he characterizes his allegations now, Mr. 

Adeyi asserted that, through the program, veterans had 

been subjected to surveillance, harassment, planned 

vehicle accidents, and hypnosis and their medical records 

had been destroyed or stolen. R.A. 3; Pet’r’s Br., Continuation p. 4. He sought relief on behalf of himself and all 

Houston veterans who have been “victimized under [the] 

PTSD research program conducted with [the] organization.” R.A. 3 (quoting Petition for Extraordinary Relief at 

1, Adeyi v. McDonald, No. 14-3237 (Vet. App. Nov. 24, 

2014)). He also claimed that the program was causing 

delay in the adjudication of his particular claims for 

disability compensation. R.A. 2. 

The Veterans Court denied Mr. Adeyi’s petition. 

First, the court determined that it lacked “jurisdiction to 

hear claims brought by a single petitioner on behalf of a 

group of veterans or . . . claimants.” R.A. 3. To the extent 

that Mr. Adeyi alleged violations of his own constitutional 
ADEYI v. MCDONALD 3

rights in the Houston RO’s consideration of his personal 

claims for disability benefits, the court determined that 

mandamus was inappropriate because he could pursue 

those challenges through the normal appellate process. 

Id. The court also denied mandamus with respect to Mr. 

Adeyi’s allegations of delay in the consideration of his 

disability claims, noting that the Secretary provided 

evidence that the VA was processing Mr. Adeyi’s claims 

and Mr. Adeyi had not shown delay “equivalent to an 

arbitrary refusal by the Secretary to act.” Id. Finally, the 

court rejected Mr. Adeyi’s general allegations of “impropriety by the Houston RO” as “unsupported” and “vague.” 

Id. 

Mr. Adeyi now appeals, arguing that “use of [the] Writ 

of Mandamus is warranted,” that he had sufficiently 

developed his claims of impropriety by the Houston RO, 

Pet’r’s Br., Continuation p. 2, and that a “collective remedy” is appropriate, id. at 3. He asks this court to “review 

the constitutionality of [the] . . . pretextual PTSD research program that ha[s] caused medical/physical injuries, homelessness, and joblessness among veterans in 

Houston.” Id. at 5. 

DISCUSSION

This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the 

Veterans Court is limited. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We have 

jurisdiction to decide an appeal insofar as it presents a 

challenge to a Veterans Court decision regarding a rule of 

law, including the interpretation or validity of any statute 

or regulation. Id. § 7292(a), (d)(1). We do not have jurisdiction to review a challenge to a factual determination or 

a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of 

a particular case, except to the extent that an appeal 

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

Under this authority, we may “review the [Veterans 

Court’s] decision whether to grant a mandamus petition 

that raises a non-frivolous legal question . . . . We may 
4 ADEYI v. MCDONALD

not review the factual merits of the veteran’s claim, but 

we may determine whether the petitioner has satisfied 

the legal standard for issuing the writ.” Beasley v. 

Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The legal 

standard for mandamus is demanding. A person seeking 

mandamus must “show (1) that he has a clear legal right 

to relief; (2) that there are no adequate alternative legal 

channels through which [he] may obtain that relief, and 

(3) that the grant of mandamus relief is appropriate 

under the circumstances.” Id. at 1157 (citing Cheney v. 

U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)). 

Having reviewed Mr. Adeyi’s submissions, including 

his submission dated April 2, 2015, we conclude that Mr. 

Adeyi has not shown a legal entitlement to relief under 

these standards. First, he has not shown a clear legal 

right to proceed with a claim for class relief. The Veterans Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over 

claims “brought by a single petitioner on behalf of a group 

of veterans.” R.A. 3. That determination reflects 

longstanding Veterans Court precedent. E.g., Am. Legion 

v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 1, 8 (2007) (“Congress has 

expressly limited our jurisdiction to addressing only 

appeals and petitions brought by individual claimants.”). 

The Veterans Court’s position is, at a minimum, not 

clearly incorrect. Cf. Spain v. Principi, 18 F. App’x 784, 

785–86 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“We agree that the Veterans 

Court did not have the authority to . . . establish class 

action procedures . . . .”).

As to the alleged violation of Mr. Adeyi’s rights with 

respect to the processing or adjudication of his claims for 

his own disability benefits, the Veterans Court determined that Mr. Adeyi can seek relief through the normal 

appellate process. We see no legal error in that conclusion. Mandamus is therefore unavailable for this claim.

We also see no basis for reversing the Veterans 

Court’s denial of mandamus relief based on Mr. Adeyi’s 
ADEYI v. MCDONALD 5

allegation that the PTSD research program was causing 

delay in the adjudication of his claims for disability-based 

compensation. R.A. 3. The Veterans Court determined 

that the Secretary “provided evidence that VA is taking 

action on each of [Mr. Adeyi’s] claims” and that Mr. Adeyi 

had not shown delay egregious enough to merit extraordinary relief. R.A. 3 (relying on Costanza v. West, 12 Vet. 

App. 133, 134 (1999) (per curiam) (mandamus for delay is 

unavailable unless the delay “is so extraordinary, given 

the demands and resources of the Secretary, that the 

delay amounts to an arbitrary refusal to act”)); see also

Ribaudo v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 552, 555 (2007) (en 

banc). Mr. Adeyi has not identified any basis on which we 

could conclude that the Veterans Court committed a legal 

error in finding insufficient delay in his case to warrant 

extraordinary relief. 

Finally, we see no basis for overturning the Veterans 

Court’s rejection of mandamus relief based on Mr. Adeyi’s 

claims that the Houston RO’s work with Mission Continues is violating the constitutional rights of veterans in a 

manner untethered to any claim of entitlement to benefits. The Veterans Court concluded that Mr. Adeyi’s 

allegations in this regard were “vague” and “unsupported.” R.A. 3. We find no error in that characterization, let 

alone an error sufficient to disturb the denial of relief 

under a legal standard that requires a showing of a “clear 

and indisputable” right to relief. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Veterans 

Court is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED