N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ STEVEN L. LONDON, Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2022

- 1503

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 19

- 5784, Judge Michael P. Allen.

______________________

Decided: June 9 , 2022

______________________
S TEVEN L ONDON , Blagoevgra d , Bulgaria , pro se.

A UGUSTUS J EFFREY G OLDEN , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division , United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by B RIAN M. B OYNTON , P ATRICIA M. M C C ARTHY , L OREN M ISHA P REHEIM

.

______________________ Case: 22-1503 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2022LONDON v. MCDONOUGH 2

Before M OORE , Chief Judge

, D YK and C HEN , Circ uit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. Steven L. London appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying his petition for a writ of mandamus

. Because Mr. London obtained the relief sought in his mandamus petition , we dismiss

. B ACKGROU ND On July 12, 2013, Mr. London filed multiple disability claim s with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). J.A. 47. T he VA granted some of his claim s and denied the
rest

. Id.
On March 23, 2017, Mr. London began the appeal process by submitting a notice of disagreement

. J.A. 229. Almost a year later, the VA certified Mr. London’s appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. J.A. 189. More than a year after that , the Board had not held a hearing in Mr. London’s case. J.A. 274 ¶ 3.

A ll eging unreasonable delay, Mr. London petitioned the Veterans Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the Board to “render full adjudication. ” J.A. 278. Based on the Secretary’s representation that the VA was “in the process of providing that relief, ” the Veterans Court denied the petition. J.A. 17

– 18. Mr. London appealed.

We vacated and remanded with instructions for theVeterans Court to apply the correct legal standard in deciding whether to grant Mr. London’s mandamus petition. London v. McDonough

, 840 F. App’x 596, 597 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (non

- precedential). On remand, the Veterans Court again denied the petition

. London v. McDonough , No. 19

- 5784 , 2021 WL 4227879 , at *1 (Vet. App. Sept. 17, 2021). Again, Mr. London appealed. Case: 22-1503 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2022LONDON v. MCDONOUGH 3

On October 18, 2021, t he Board provided the relief that Mr. London sought in his mandamus petition . That is, it “made a decision on [his] appeal .” J.A. 64. The Board affirmed the VA’s denial of Mr. London’s claim s . J.A. 66

– 67.

D ISCUSSION

“ A case becomes moot

— and therefore no longer a ‘ Case ’

or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article III [of the Constitution]

— when the issues presented are no longer live.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. , 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (cleaned up). If no court is capable of granting the relief a petitioner seeks, no live controversy remains. Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States

, 579 U.S. 162, 169 (2016)

. Here, there is no live controversy because the Veterans Court cannot order the Board to do what it has already do ne : adjudicate Mr. London’s appeal. Mr. London does not dispute that the Board fully resolved his appeal in its October 18, 2021 decision. He instead argues only that theBoard’s decision “relied upon erroneous evidence.” Appellant’s Reply Br. 3. This argument is beyond the scope of Mr. London’s mandamus petition, as it challenges the merits of the Board’s decision

. The appropriate avenue for Mr. London’s merits

- based argument is direct appeal. Because the Board provided the relief sought and no live controversy remains, we dismiss Mr. London’s appeal as moot.

DISMISSED

C OSTS

No costs. Case: 22-1503 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2022