NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RODOLFO RIVERA MUNOZ,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2022-1628

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 20-2249, Judge Joseph L. Toth.

______________________

Decided: October 12, 2022

______________________

RODOLFO RIVERA MUNOZ, II, San Antonio, TX, pro se. 

 NATHANAEL YALE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

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

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY; CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

 ______________________

Case: 22-1628 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 10/12/2022
2 MUNOZ v. MCDONOUGH

Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Rodolfo Rivera Munoz (“Munoz”) appeals a decision of 

the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court dismissed 

Munoz’s appeal of a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals after determining that his appeal was untimely under 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) and not subject to equitable tolling.

Our jurisdiction and ability to review the Veterans 

Court in these matters is limited by statute. While a party

may obtain review of a Veterans Court’s decision on a rule 

of law or of any statute or regulation or any interpretation 

thereof, other than a determination as to a factual matter, 

“that was relied on by the Court in making the decision,” 

38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), and we have “exclusive jurisdiction to 

review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof brought under this section, and to interpret constitutional and 

statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary 

to a decision,” id. § 7292(c), 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,”

unless the appeal presents a constitutional issue, id.

§ 7292(d)(2).

Munoz does not raise any reviewable challenge. The 

Veterans Court dismissed Munoz’s appeal on the ground 

that Munoz filed it too late under 38 U.S.C. § 7266 and 

made no adequate showing to support equitable tolling. 

The lateness is not in dispute, and Munoz does not challenge as legally erroneous the standard the Veterans Court 

articulated for the non-constitutional doctrine of equitable 

tolling, which requires proof of due diligence, an extraordinary circumstance, and a causal connection between that 

circumstance and the delay in appealing. See, e.g., Aldridge v. McDonald, 837 F.3d 1261, 1265-66 (Fed. Cir. 

Case: 22-1628 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 10/12/2022
MUNOZ v. MCDONOUGH 3

2016); Toomer v. McDonald, 783 F.3d 1229, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 

2015). All he challenges is the application of that standard 

to the facts of his case, including the various circumstances 

he invoked to support equitable tolling. Examining this 

challenge would require the application of law to fact, a 

task that is outside our jurisdiction here. See, e.g., Leonard 

v. Gober, 223 F.3d 1374, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

We have considered Munoz’s other issues and find that 

none of them affect the outcome. Accordingly, because we 

lack jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, we must dismiss 

the appeal.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 22-1628 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 10/12/2022