N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


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

______________________
JOHN HASSAN, Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1732

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 22

- 4742, Judge Joseph L. Toth.

______________________

Decided: February 20, 2024

______________________

J OHN H ASSAN , Center Moriches, NY, pro se.

M ATNEY E LIZABETH R OLFE , Commercial LitigationBranch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by B RIAN M. B O YNTON
, E RIC P. B RUSKIN
, P ATRICIA M. M C C ARTHY ; R ICHARD S TEPHEN H UBER , Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________ Case: 23-1732 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 02/20/2024HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH 2

Before P ROST
, S CHALL
, and R EYNA
, Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. D ECISION
John Hassan appeals the order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) that granted the Secretary’s motion to dismiss his appeal in Hassan v. McDonough , No. 22

- 4742 (Vet. App. Feb. 9, 2023), App. 1

. * In his appeal to the Veterans Court, Mr. Hassan sought to challenge the July 25, 2022 decision of the Board of Veterans ’ Appeals (“Board”) that determinedthat the discontinuance of Veteran Readiness and Employment (“VR&E”) services to him under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. Chapter 31 was improper. Id. The Veterans Courtdismissed Mr. Hassan’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Mr. Hassan did not obtain an adverse, final decision from the Board. Id. at 1– 2. The court explained that 38 U.S .C. § 7266(a), its jurisdictional statute, requires that a Board decision be adverse for a claimant to obtain review by the Veterans Court. Id. at 1. Because the July 25, 2022 Board decision was entirely favorable to Mr. Hassan, there was nothing for the court to review. Id. The court notedthat, if Mr. Hassan was dissatisfied with the service provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs through the VR&E, he could seek review of those issues. Id. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

D ISCUSSI ON
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans Court is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We have jurisdiction to decide an appeal insofar as it presents a challenge to the court’s decision regarding a rule of law,

* “App.” citations are to the appendix filed with Respondent

- Appellee’s Informal Response Brief

, ECF No. 6. Case: 23-1732 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 02/20/2024HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH 3

including a decision about the interpretation or validity of any statute or regulation. Id. § 7292(a), (d)(1). However, we lack jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a factual determination or a challenge to the application of a law or regulation to the facts of a particular c ase, unless the appeal presents a constitutional issue. Id. § 7292(d)(2).

We have reviewed the decision of the Veterans Courtand have considered all the arguments raised by Mr. Hassan in his appeal of the court’s decision dismissing his appeal. Mr. Hass an does not argue that 38 U.S.C. § 7266 is invalid or was misinterpreted by the Veterans Court

, nor does he raise any legitimate constitutional issues. Rather, it is clear that Mr. Hassan’s appeal boils down to a challenge to factual determinations concer ning the feasibility of reinstating his computer training; and a challenge to the Veterans Court’s application of its jurisdictional statute to the facts of his case. Those are matter s beyond our jurisdiction.

C ONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we lack jurisdiction to adjudicate Mr. Hassan’s appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

DISMISSED

C OSTS

No costs

. Case: 23-1732 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 02/20/2024