NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7020

OSCAR S. GOINS,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in

06-1377, Judge Bruce E. Kasold.

ON MOTION

Before GAJARSA, FRIEDMAN, and LINN Circuit Judqes.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir.

R. 27(f) and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Oscar S. Goins's appeal from a decision of

the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the Board of Veterans'

Appeals (Board) decision that denied Goins entitlement to disability compensation

based on Agent Orange exposure for liver disease, kidney disease, and skin disease.

Goins opposes.

At the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Goins argued that the Board erred

in (1) determining he was not eligible for disability compensation based on exposure to

Agent Orange, (2) failing to apply the benefit of the doubt principle pursuant to 38

U.S.C. § 5107(b), (3) failing to provide a Statement of the Case (SOC), and (4) not

addressing whether Goins was entitled to disability compensation for post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD). The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Board's

decision. In doing so, the court found that none of Goins's claimed diseases were

entitled to a presumption of Agent Orange exposure and that there was no medical

evidence that Goins suffered from any current skin, liver, or kidney condition. The court

also found that the record reflected that Goins received an SOC and that his PTSD

claim was pending before the agency and was not on appeal before the court.

The court's jurisdiction to review decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans

Claims is limited. See Forshey v. Principi 284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en

banc). Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), this court has jurisdiction over rules of law or the

validity of any statute or regulation, or an interpretation thereof relied on by the court in

its decision. This court may also entertain challenges to the validity of a statute or

regulation, and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions as needed for

resolution of the matter. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). In contrast, except where an appeal

presents a constitutional question, this court lacks jurisdiction over challenges to factual

determinations or laws or regulations as applied to the particular case. 38 U.S.C. §

7292(d)(2).

Goins asserts in his brief and response that the Court of Appeals for Veterans

Claims failed to consider the evidence that demonstrates his entitlement to

compensation benefits. Goins's arguments regarding how the court weighed the

evidence and facts of his case are outside of this court's limited jurisdiction. Goins also

generally asserts that the court failed to follow the statutes and regulations and also

violated his "constitutional rights from A-Z," including various assertions of due process

violations alleged against the agency, the court, and the government. Although Goins

asserts that his arguments involve issues of statutory interpretation and matters of law,

this court must look beyond the appellant's characterization of the issues to determine

-2-
whether they fall within the jurisdiction of this court. Flores v. Nicholson 476 F.3d 1379,

1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here,

Goins's arguments are aimed at factual issues or issues outside the confines of this

appeal. Because we agree with the Secretary that this court lacks jurisdiction, we must

dismiss Goins's appeal.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Secretary's motions are granted.

Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

MAY - 5 2009

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Date

cc:	Oscar S. Coins

Stacey K. Grigsby, Esq.

Jan Horbaly

Clerk eeitittropPEaLs FOR THE F	CIRCUIT

s19

MAY -5 2009

JAN HONahLi

CLERK ISSUED AS A MANDATE:	

MAY - 5 2009

- 3 -