N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential 

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

__________________________ ANGELA HILL, Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee.

__________________________
2012-7025

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in case no. 10-4211, Judge William P. Greene, Jr.

__________________________ Decided: April 9, 2012

___________________________
A NGELA H ILL , of Shreveport, Louisiana, pro se

A RMANDO A. R ODRIGUEZ -F EO , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, for appellee. With him on the brief were T ONY W EST , Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON , Director, and C LAUDIA B URKE , Assistant Director. Of co unsel on the brief was M ICHAELHILL v. DVA 2

J. T IMINSKI , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington DC. Of counsel was B RIAN D. G RIFFIN , Attorney, Department of Veterans Affairs.

__________________________
Before D YK , O’M ALLEY , and R EYNA , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. Angela Hill (“Hill”) appeals from a judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“VeteransCourt”). The Veterans Court affirmed a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision denying an earlier effective date for death pension benefits. Hill v. Shinseki , No. 10-4211, 2011 WL 3759672 (Vet. A pp. Aug. 26, 2011). We dismiss

. B ACKGROUNDHill filed a claim for death pension benefits in September 2001, after the death of her husband, a veteran. A Veterans Affairs regional office (“RO”) denied her claim inDecember 2001 because her income exceeded the maximum for receiving a death pension benefit. Hill did not file an appeal with respect to the December 2001 decision within the period for appeal. In January 2002, Hill filed an application for burial benefits, but this application did not express dissatisfaction with the December 2001 decision. On July 20, 2007, Hill sought to reopen her claim for death pension benefits. In December 2008, the ROawarded her benefits, effective July 20, 2007. Hill appealed to the Board, seeking an effective date of September 2001 based on her original claim. The Board deniedan earlier effective date because Hill had neither appealed the RO’s December 2001 decision nor claimed thatHILL v. DVA 3

it was based on clear and unm istakable error (“CUE”). The Veterans Court affirmed, agreeing that the only correspondence submitted by Hill between the December 2001 decision and her July 2007 application was her January 2002 application for burial benefits, which could not be construed as a notice of disagreement with the December 2001 decision. Hill , 2011 WL 3759672, at *1. Hill timely appealed to this court.

D ISCUSSION Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c), ou r jurisdiction to review Veterans Court decisions is limited to “challenge[s] to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof.” 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); see Guillory v. Shinseki , 603 F.3d 981, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Hill does not challenge the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation. The only issue on appeal is the effective date for her death pension benefits. The effective date of an award “shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor.” 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). Because Hill did not file a notice of disagreement with the RO’s Decemb er 2001 decision within one year, that decision became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c). Hill’s current claim was rece ived on July 20, 2007, and she did not allege CUE in the December 2001 decision, so she was awarded death pension benefits with the effective date of July 20, 2007. The effective date of a claim is a question of fact that is beyond our jurisdiction. See Butler v. Shinseki , 603 F.3d 922, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Because this court is without jurisdiction, we dismiss.HILL v. DVA 4

C OSTS

No costs.