NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CHARLES DAVID JEREMIAH,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7019

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-2016, Chief Judge Bruce E. 

Kasold.

______________________ 

Decided: July 13, 2015

______________________ 

CHARLES DAVID JEREMIAH, Licking, MO, pro se. 

MICHAEL D. SNYDER, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

ALLISON KIDD-MILLER; Y. KEN LEE, CHRISTINA LYNN 

GREGG, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
2 JEREMIAH v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and WALLACH,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Mr. Charles David Jeremiah petitions for review of 

the Veterans Court’s judgment in Charles David Jeremiah v. Robert A. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

No. 14-2016 (Vet. App. Sept. 24, 2014), denying Mr. 

Jeremiah’s petition for extraordinary relief in the nature 

of mandamus. We dismiss Mr. Jeremiah’s petition for a 

lack of jurisdiction, as Mr. Jeremiah challenges only the 

factual decisions which are beyond the jurisdiction of this 

court. 

Mr. Jeremiah, an incarcerated veteran, filed an initial 

and amended petition for extraordinary relief with the 

Veterans Court. Mr. Jeremiah asked the Veterans Court 

to order the Veterans Administration (“VA”) to provide 

him a non-1-800 VA contact telephone number so that he 

may more easily contact the VA from prison and facilitate 

access to an online VA eBenefits portal for elderly, mentally ill, or incarcerated persons. The Veterans Court 

determined that Mr. Jeremiah failed to demonstrate an 

entitlement to a writ, based on Cheney v. United States 

District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004), because Mr. Jeremiah 

failed to identify any law that entitled him to the relief he 

requested. 

Following the Veterans Court’s decision, Mr. Jeremiah filed a motion for reconsideration of the Veterans 

Court order, which was denied. Mr. Jeremiah then filed a 

motion for either a panel rehearing, or in the alternative, 

a transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit. The Veterans Court treated Mr. Jeremiah’s motion as a notice of appeal. While we have exclusive jurisdiction “to review and decide any challenge to 

the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpreta-
JEREMIAH v. MCDONALD 3

tion thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a 

decision,” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c) (2006), absent a constitutional issue, we lack jurisdiction to “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.” Id. 

at § 7292(d)(2).

Here, in denying Mr. Jeremiah’s writ for extraordinary relief, the Veterans Court did not interpret or elaborate upon the meaning of any statute or regulation. 

Instead, in its application of Cheney,1 the Veterans Court 

determined that Mr. Jeremiah identified no law requiring 

the VA to provide him with the requested relief. Additionally, the VA determined that even if there was such a 

law, Mr. Jeremiah possesses adequate alternative means 

to communicate with the VA, namely via the United 

States Postal Service. Based upon these factual determinations the Veterans Court concluded that the three 

conditions required for a writ were not met.

Mr. Jeremiah argues that this court has jurisdiction 

for two reasons. First, Mr. Jeremiah argues that “[u]nder 

the All Writs Act, all courts established by an act of 

1 A party seeking a writ for extraordinary relief 

must meet three requirements. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-

81. “First, the party seeking issuance of the writ [must] 

have no other adequate means to attain the relief he 

desires,—a condition designed to ensure that the writ will 

not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals process. Second, the petitioner must satisfy the burden of 

showing that [his] right to issuance of the writ is clear 

and indisputable. Third, even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court, in the exercise of 

its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Id. (alterations in original) 

(citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

 
4 JEREMIAH v. MCDONALD

Congress may issue writs necessary or appropriate in aid 

of their respective jurisdiction.” Reply Br. 1 (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 1651(a)). Second, Mr. Jeremiah argues that 

“[t]he jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit to review Veterans Court decisions 

is limited by statute. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C.S. §7292(a), 

the court of appeals may review the validity of a decision 

of the Veterans Court on a rule of law or any statute or 

regulation or any interpretation thereof that was relied on 

by the Veterans Court in making a decision.” Id. 

Taking Mr. Jeremiah’s first argument, the question 

before us is not whether the Veterans Court has authority 

to hear writs for extraordinary relief, but whether the 

petitioned for writ is proper. Here, the Veterans Court, as 

a factual matter, found that the necessary elements 

present for it to hear the writ were not established. As we 

do not sit in review of the Veterans Court’s factual findings, but instead only its interpretation of law, this argument is not persuasive. Looking to Mr. Jeremiah’s second 

argument, Mr. Jeremiah is correct that our jurisdiction is 

limited. However, it is this limited review that restricts 

our jurisdiction in this case. We do not review the Veterans Court’s application of facts to law. Thus, Mr. Jeremiah’s second argument is also unpersuasive. 

For the reasons stated above we find that we are 

without jurisdiction to consider this appeal and must 

therefore dismiss this case.

DISMISSED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs.