NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SUELY RAMIREZ, FKA SUELY RAMIREZ-DIAZ,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2020-1002

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 18-3162, Senior Judge Robert N. 

Davis.

______________________

Decided: March 3, 2020

______________________

SUELY RAMIREZ, New York, NY, pro se. 

 ASHLEY AKERS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

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

JOSEPH H. HUNT, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, ROBERT 

EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.; CHRISTOPHER O. ADELOYE, BRIAN 

D. GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

Case: 20-1002 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 03/03/2020
2 RAMIREZ v. WILKIE

 ______________________

Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Suely Ramirez appeals from an order of the Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) dismissing her appeal from a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) denying her claim of entitlement 

to Dependents’ Educational Assistance for lack of jurisdiction. See Ramirez-Diaz v. Wilkie, No. 18-3162, 2019 WL 

982884 (Vet. App. March 1, 2019) (“Decision”). Because 

this appeal presents no statutory or constitutional issues, 

we conclude that we lack jurisdiction and accordingly dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND

Suely Ramirez is the daughter of Luis Ramirez, a veteran who served in the Marine Corps from 1969 to 1970. 

Luis Ramirez died in 2002, and thereafter Suely Ramirez 

requested Dependents’ Educational Assistance under 

Chapter 35 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code. The Board denied 

her claim on July 28, 2017, and Ramirez filed a motion for 

reconsideration by the Board on November 11, 2017.

On June 18, 2018, prior to a ruling by the Board on her 

motion for reconsideration, Ramirez appealed the Board’s 

decision to the Veterans Court. The court observed that 

under its precedent the finality of a Board decision is 

abated when a veteran files a motion for reconsideration

within 120 days of the Board’s decision. Decision at *1 (citing Rosler v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 241 (1991)). The court 

determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the Board decision was not yet final due to Ramirez’s 

pending motion for reconsideration and dismissed the appeal. Id. The court also noted that Ramirez may appeal 

the underlying Board decision by filing a new notice of 

Case: 20-1002 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 03/03/2020
RAMIREZ v. WILKIE 3

appeal within 120 days of the Board’s decision on her motion for reconsideration.

Ramirez timely appealed the Veterans Court’s dismissal of her appeal as premature.

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited. We may review the validity of a decision 

of the Veterans Court with respect to a rule of law or interpretation of a statute or regulation relied on by the Veterans Court in its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). However, 

except with respect to constitutional issues, we may not review challenges to factual determinations or challenges to 

the application of a law or regulation to the facts of a particular case. Id. § 7292(d)(2). In considering whether an 

appeal falls within our jurisdiction, we look to the substance of the issues presented rather than a party’s characterization of the question. See Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 

1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

The Veterans Court has exclusive jurisdiction to review 

decisions of the Board. 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a). To obtain review of a decision of the Board, a notice of appeal must be 

filed at the Veterans Court within 120 days of mailing of 

the Board’s decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a). Instead of immediately seeking review of a Board decision by the Veterans Court, a claimant may request reconsideration by the 

Board. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1001. When a motion for reconsideration is filed within 120 days of the mailing date of a

Board decision, the period for filing a notice of appeal is 

tolled and the finality of the Board’s decision is abated until 

the motion is decided. See Linville v. West, 165 F.3d 1382, 

1385–86 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Rosler, 1 Vet. App. 241). If 

the motion for reconsideration is denied, a new 120-day period for filing a notice of appeal begins. Id. at 1385.

On appeal, Ramirez primarily argues the merits of the 

underlying Board decision and does not appear to address 

Case: 20-1002 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 03/03/2020
4 RAMIREZ v. WILKIE

the issue of the Veterans Court’s jurisdiction. The government argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the 

Veterans Court’s decision because it was limited to the issue of the Veterans Court’s jurisdiction and did not address 

any statute, regulation, or constitutional issue.

We agree with the government that we lack jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s decision that the appeal 

was premature. The court’s decision did not address the 

validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation or

any constitutional issue. Rather, in dismissing Ramirez’s

appeal, the court merely applied established law concerning the procedures for timely filing a notice of appeal to 

Ramirez’s pending motion for reconsideration before the 

Board. Specifically, the court determined that the motion 

for reconsideration was timely filed within 120 days of the 

Board’s decision and had not been decided, and therefore 

the Board’s decision was not final and could not yet be reviewed.

Although Ramirez challenges the merits of the Board’s 

decision, those arguments are beyond our jurisdiction because the decision of the Veterans Court presently on appeal was limited to jurisdictional issues. As noted by the 

Veterans Court, Ramirez can appeal the merits of the 

Board’s decision if her motion for reconsideration is denied

by the Board.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Ramirez’s remaining arguments 

but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 20-1002 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 03/03/2020