Court Opinion

ID: 9909073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 16:01:09.245161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:03.483749
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1837    Document: 17    Page: 1   Filed: 12/12/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                MANUEL GONZALEZ, JR.,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                            v.

       DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
              VETERANS AFFAIRS,
               Respondent-Appellee
              ______________________

                        2023-1837
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 22-5531, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
 dith.
                 ______________________

                Decided: December 12, 2023
                  ______________________

    MANUEL GONZALEZ, JR., San Antonio, TX, pro se.

     KELLY GEDDES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________
Case: 23-1837    Document: 17     Page: 2    Filed: 12/12/2023

 2                                  GONZALEZ v. MCDONOUGH

     Before LOURIE, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Manuel Gonzalez, Jr. appeals an order of the United
 States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans
 Court) that dismissed his petitions for extraordinary relief
 in the nature of a writ of mandamus. Gonzalez v.
 McDonough, No. 22-5531, 2022 WL 16706691, at *2 (Vet.
 App. Nov. 4, 2022) (Veterans Court Decision). Because we
 lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we dismiss.
                        BACKGROUND
     Mr. Gonzalez served in the United States Air Force
 from June 1996 to June 2000. On September 12, 2022,
 Mr. Gonzalez filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. The
 petition appeared to ask the Veterans Court to compel the
 regional office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
 to accept his March 2022 claim of clear and unmistakable
 error (CUE) on rating decisions from March 2011 and Feb-
 ruary 2013 that denied entitlement to benefits. The Veter-
 ans Court requested additional information and in
 response, Mr. Gonzalez filed a supplemental petition on
 October 3, 2022.
      After reviewing the relevant documents, on October 12,
 2022, the Veterans Court issued an order noting that when
 the VA informed Mr. Gonzalez he was required to file his
 claim on a specific form, the VA appears to have construed
 Mr. Gonzalez’s CUE claim as a claim for benefits. Under
 the VA Adjudication Procedures Manual, a claim for bene-
 fits requires a specific form in order to proceed, but a CUE
 motion does not. In response, the Secretary of Veterans
 Affairs conceded that the VA had in fact mistakenly in-
 formed Mr. Gonzalez that filing a CUE motion required a
 specific form. The Secretary also noted that Mr. Gonzalez’s
 CUE motion had been accepted and “referred to the rating
 activity for review.” Veterans Court Decision, 2022 WL
 16706691, at *1.
Case: 23-1837    Document: 17      Page: 3    Filed: 12/12/2023

 GONZALEZ v. MCDONOUGH                                      3

     On November 4, 2022, the Veterans Court dismissed
 Mr. Gonzalez’s petitions as moot. The Veterans Court de-
 termined “the petitioner has received the relief he sought:
 VA has recognized that he need not file a specific form to
 allege CUE and has accepted his CUE motion for pro-
 cessing.” Id. at *2.
                         DISCUSSION
     The scope of our review of a Veterans Court decision is
 limited. We have “jurisdiction to review and decide any
 challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any
 interpretation thereof.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). Except to the
 extent that an appeal presents 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.” Id. § 7292(d)(2).
      Mr. Gonzalez appears to argue that the Veterans
 Court’s dismissal is contrary to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (the All
 Writs Act) and Article III of the Constitution. Appellant’s
 Informal Br. 1. Mr. Gonzalez also appears to argue that
 the regional office intake center violated its responsibility
 to assist claimants in obtaining evidence necessary to sub-
 stantiate claims under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(1). Id. at 8.
 However, the Veterans Court did not interpret or review
 the validity of any statute or regulation in dismissing the
 petitions as moot. Instead, the Veterans Court made a fac-
 tual determination that the regional office accepted
 Mr. Gonzalez’s CUE motion for processing, which we have
 no jurisdiction to review. Moreover, while Mr. Gonzalez os-
 tensibly raises a constitutional challenge to the Veterans
 Court’s decision, Mr. Gonzalez’s mere reference to Article
 III “does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise
 lack.” Flores v. Nicholson, 476 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
 2007). To the extent Mr. Gonzalez argues the details of his
 CUE motion, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such
 arguments. See Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1384
Case: 23-1837    Document: 17       Page: 4   Filed: 12/12/2023

 4                                   GONZALEZ v. MCDONOUGH

 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that a writ of mandamus can-
 not be used as a substitute for an appeal).
                        CONCLUSION
    We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the appeal of the Vet-
 erans Court’s decision dismissing Mr. Gonzalez’s manda-
 mus petitions as moot.
                        DISMISSED
                            COSTS
 No costs.