NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ROBERT RESENDEZ,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2023-1819

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 22-4910, Chief Judge Margaret C. 

Bartley, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch, Judge Michael P. Allen.

______________________ 

Decided: November 8, 2023 

______________________ 

ROBERT RESENDEZ, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

 MARIANA TERESA ACEVEDO, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, L.

MISHA PREHEIM. 

______________________ 

Case: 23-1819 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 11/08/2023
2 RESENDEZ v. MCDONOUGH

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Robert Resendez appeals an order of the United States 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) 

denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. For the 

reasons discussed below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Resendez filed an application with the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (“VA”) seeking service connection for 

hearing loss, tinnitus, and a lumbar spinal condition. 

SAppx* 10–11. On March 13, 2019, a VA Regional Office 

(“RO”) issued a rating decision granting Resendez 

entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and 

tinnitus but denying him service connection for the lumbar 

spinal condition. SAppx 14–18. In a letter dated March 

18, 2019, the RO provided Resendez with notice of its 

rating decision as well as instructions regarding how to 

seek review of that decision. SAppx 19–26. 

On May 21, 2019, Resendez submitted a notice of 

disagreement (“NOD”) challenging the RO’s March 2019 

rating decision. SAppx 32–34. He asserted that he was 

entitled to a higher rating for his service-connected hearing 

loss and tinnitus and that he should have been granted 

service connection for his spinal condition. SAppx 33. 

Resendez submitted his NOD using a form from the VA’s 

legacy claims system rather than a form from the 

administrative appeals system established pursuant to the 

Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 

2017 (“AMA”), Pub. L. No. 115–55, 131 Stat. 1105. See

SAppx 32–34.

* “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix filed 

with the government’s informal brief.

Case: 23-1819 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 11/08/2023
RESENDEZ v. MCDONOUGH 3

On July 2, 2019, the VA notified Resendez that his 

NOD had been submitted on an incorrect form, explaining 

that the form he had submitted was for the VA’s legacy 

system and that he should submit his request for review of 

the March 2019 rating decision using the proper form for 

the AMA system. SAppx 42–44. Two weeks later, 

Resendez submitted another legacy form challenging the 

March 2019 rating decision and asserting that he had 

never agreed to be part of the AMA appeals system. SAppx 

45–47. On August 21, 2020, Resendez submitted another 

legacy form alleging that the VA had inappropriately 

rejected his challenge to the March 2019 rating decision 

and further asserting that the VA had rejected his request 

to revise that decision based on clear and unmistakable 

error (“CUE”). SAppx 49–55.

On November 3, 2020, a representative from the RO 

contacted Resendez by telephone and informed him that he 

needed to use the correct AMA form to contest the RO’s 

March 2019 rating decision. SAppx 57. The representative 

also mailed Resendez the correct AMA form. SAppx 57.

On January 19, 2021, the VA received another legacy 

form from Resendez. SAppx 58–63. Two days later, an RO 

representative again called Resendez and informed him 

that he had submitted an “obsolete” form and that he 

needed to use the correct AMA form. SAppx 65. On 

January 22, 2021, and May 17, 2021, the RO sent letters to 

Resendez reiterating that he needed to use the correct 

AMA form to contest the March 2019 rating decision. 

SAppx 66–75. The RO included a copy of the correct AMA 

form with the May 2021 letter it sent to Resendez. SAppx

69. 

In April 2022, Resendez submitted a legacy form 

challenging the March 2019 rating decision as well as the 

VA’s alleged rejection of his motion to revise that rating 

decision on the basis of CUE. SAppx 76–83. On April 18, 

2022, the VA again provided instructions to Resendez on 

Case: 23-1819 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 11/08/2023
4 RESENDEZ v. MCDONOUGH

how to properly challenge a rating decision under the AMA. 

SAppx 87–89. In August 2022, Resendez filed a petition for 

a writ of mandamus in the Veterans Court, arguing that 

the VA had: (1) refused to process his appeal of the RO’s 

March 2019 rating decision; (2) declined to adjudicate his 

motion to revise the March 2019 rating decision on the 

basis of CUE; and (3) “fraudulently” forced him to 

participate in the AMA system. SAppx 1 (citation omitted).

The Veterans Court issued an order denying 

Resendez’s mandamus petition on November 1, 2022. 

SAppx 1–9. Resendez then appealed to this court. 

DISCUSSION

“This court’s authority to review decisions of the 

Veterans Court is circumscribed by statute.” Dixon v. 

Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Absent a 

constitutional issue, 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.” 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); see Dixon, 741 F.3d at 1373. These 

jurisdictional limits apply with full force in the context of 

an appeal of a Veterans Court decision denying a petition 

for a writ of mandamus. See Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 

1154, 1157–58 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

Mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary remedy 

reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Cheney v. U.S. 

Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). A court may issue a 

writ of mandamus only if three prerequisites are met: (1) 

the party seeking issuance of the writ must have no other 

adequate means to obtain the relief he desires; (2) the 

petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right 

to the writ; and (3) the court, in its discretion, must be 

convinced that the circumstances warrant issuance of the 

writ. See id. at 380–81; Wolfe v. McDonough, 28 F.4th 

1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2022). 

Case: 23-1819 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 11/08/2023
RESENDEZ v. MCDONOUGH 5

We conclude that the Veterans Court did not abuse its 

discretion or commit legal error in denying Resendez’s 

petition for a writ of mandamus. See Hargrove v. Shinseki, 

629 F.3d 1377, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We turn first to 

Resendez’s argument that he is entitled to a writ of 

mandamus because the VA has improperly attempted to 

force him to participate in the AMA appeals system. 

“Congress enacted the AMA in 2017 to reform the existing 

VA administrative appeals system, which was, by all 

accounts, ‘broken,’ marked by lengthy delays, and plagued 

with a formidable backlog of cases.” Mil.-Veterans 

Advocacy v. Sec’y of Veterans Affs., 7 F.4th 1110, 1118 (Fed. 

Cir. 2021) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 115–135, at 5 (2017)). By 

its plain terms, the AMA specifies that if a claimant 

receives notice of a VA rating decision after February 19, 

2019, he must file any challenge to that decision through 

the AMA appeals system. See Pub. L. No. 115-55, § 2(x)(1), 

131 Stat 1105, 1115 (2017); see also Mattox v. McDonough, 

56 F.4th 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Here, because 

Resendez received notice of the RO’s rating decision in 

March 2019, he was required to use the AMA appeals 

process to seek review of that decision. See 38 C.F.R. 

§ 3.2400(a); see also id. § 20.202(a) (explaining that a NOD 

“must be properly completed on a form prescribed by the 

Secretary”). Thus, as the Veterans Court correctly 

determined, Resendez was not entitled to a writ of 

mandamus prohibiting the VA from requiring him to use 

the AMA system to challenge the RO’s March 2019 rating 

decision. See SAppx 4–6.

Resendez further contends that he is entitled to a writ 

of mandamus because the VA has improperly failed to 

process his claim that the RO’s March 2019 rating decision 

contains CUE. Pet. Inf. Reply Br. 2–4, 7. As a preliminary 

matter, we note that the Veterans Court made a factual 

determination that Resendez had never “submitted a 

motion to revise the March 2019 rating decision based on 

CUE.” SAppx 8. As noted previously, we lack jurisdiction 

Case: 23-1819 Document: 18 Page: 5 Filed: 11/08/2023
6 RESENDEZ v. MCDONOUGH

to review factual determinations made by the Veterans 

Court.

We note, moreover, that the party seeking a writ of 

mandamus must have no other adequate means to obtain 

the relief he seeks. See Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 

1384 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that a writ of mandamus 

may not be used as a substitute for an appeal). Because he 

presents no evidence showing that he cannot adequately 

protect his rights by challenging the RO’s March 2019 

rating decision through the VA’s normal appeals process, 

Resendez fails to show that the Veterans Court erred in 

denying his petition for a writ of mandamus.

On appeal, Resendez appears to allege that he was 

denied due process because the Veterans Court did not 

grant full panel review of the single judge decision denying 

his petition for a writ of mandamus. See Pet. Inf. Reply Br. 

5–6; Pet. Inf. Br. 1–2. Because he provides no meaningful 

explanation of how the denial of full panel review deprived 

him of notice and a fair opportunity to be heard, however, 

Resendez fails to show that his due process rights have 

been violated. See Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290, 

1296 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Due process of law has been 

interpreted to include notice and a fair opportunity to be 

heard.”). We have considered Resendez’s remaining 

arguments but do not find them persuasive. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the order of the United States Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 23-1819 Document: 18 Page: 6 Filed: 11/08/2023