NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7049 CARLOS J. RUIZ-ROJAS, JR., Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

Carlos J. Ruiz-Rojas, Jr. , of Miami, Florida, pro se. Phyllis Jo Baunach , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, fo r respondent-appellee. With her on the brief were Michael F. Hertz , Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Kirk T. Manhardt , Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. Timinski , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Y. Ken Lee , Attorney, United States Department of Veter ans Affairs, of Washington, DC. Appealed from: United States Cour t of Appeals for Veterans Claims Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7049 CARLOS J. RUIZ-ROJAS, JR., Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Ve terans Claims in 06-3590, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

__________________________ DECIDED: July 9, 2009

__________________________ Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Mr. Ruiz-Rojas appeals the September 16, 2008 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“V eterans Court”) upholding the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’s (“Board”) decision denyi ng his claim for service connection. Because Mr. Ruiz-Rojas does not raise any ma tters that are within our jurisdiction, we must dismiss his appeal. I. BACKGROUND Mr. Ruiz-Rojas served on active duty in the United States Army from November 1962 to May 1963. In 1989, Mr. Ruiz-Rojas f iled a claim for service connection for a “[t]umor on the spine.” Shor tly thereafter, a Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”)Regional Office (“RO”) found that a variety of Mr. Ruiz-Rojas’s conditions, including “residuals, intramedullary ependymoma” and “residuals, sebaceous cyst, upper back,” were not service connected. Mr. Ruiz -Rojas appealed and in 1997 the Board continued the denial of service connection. Subsequently , Mr. Ruiz-Rojas s ubmitted a statement to the VA alleging that he and other soldie rs had been exposed to Agent Orange as part of military tests. He all eged that this exposure resulted in various medical conditions including “Cancer of the Breast[,] Ependimoma [sic] of the Spine[,] Cyst of the liver[, and] Cholesterol and cysts.” After several years of proceedings, the Boar d issued the decision at issue in this appeal, which denied Mr. Ruiz-Rojas’s claim for service connection for multiple cysts of the right kidney, liver, and skin. On appeal to the Veterans Court, Mr. Ruiz-Rojas argued that the VA failed to conduct an adequat e medical examinat ion and that the Board’s statement of reasons and bases was inadequate. The Veterans Court concluded that the VA’s medical examinati on was proper and, although the Board erred by failing to address Mr. Ruiz-Rojas’s lay ev idence of his in-service exposure to Agent Orange, that error was harmless because even if exposure were assumed, the evidence failed to establish an etiologica l nexus between the exposure and Mr. RuizRojas’s condition. II. DISCUSSION This court’s jurisdiction over appeals from t he Veterans Court is strictly limited by statute. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we have jurisdiction to review a decision of the Veterans Court “with respect to the validit y of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a

2009-7049 22009-7049 3 determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the decision.” However, absent a cons titutional 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). Mr. Ruiz-Rojas’s appeal in this case does not raise any issues within our jurisdiction. His appeal focuses on the VA’s all eged failure to satisfy its duty to assist. Specifically, he asserts that the VA was obligated to obtain “the results of [his] first operation” and the roster of soldiers who t ook part in the Agent Orange test. However, reviewing this allegation would entail applyi ng the law governing the VA’s duty to assist to the facts of Mr. Ruiz-Rojas ’s particular case. For exampl e, we would need to review the Board’s conclusion that “all relevant facts ha[d] been properly developed in regard to [Mr. Ruiz-Rojas’s] claim,” J.A. 19, and det ermine whether the “results of [the] first operation” and the roster were “necessary to substantiate [Mr. Ruiz-Rojas’s] claim,” 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(1). Section 7292(d)(2) expr essly prohibits us from engaging in this type of review. III. CONCLUSION Because this court does not have jurisdiction over any matter that Mr. Ruiz-Rojas raises, we must dismiss his appeal. COSTS Each party shall bear its own costs.