Court Opinion

ID: 9942177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 17:01:24.824049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:48.280191
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1732    Document: 21     Page: 1   Filed: 02/20/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                     JOHN HASSAN,
                    Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2023-1732
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 22-4742, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
                 ______________________

                Decided: February 20, 2024
                 ______________________

    JOHN HASSAN, Center Moriches, NY, pro se.

     MATNEY ELIZABETH ROLFE, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
 sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA
 M. MCCARTHY; RICHARD STEPHEN HUBER, Office of General
 Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs,
 Washington, DC.
                 ______________________
Case: 23-1732    Document: 21      Page: 2    Filed: 02/20/2024

 2                                     HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH

     Before PROST, SCHALL, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                          DECISION
     John Hassan appeals the order of the United States
 Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”)
 that granted the Secretary’s motion to dismiss his appeal
 in Hassan v. McDonough, No. 22-4742 (Vet. App. Feb. 9,
 2023), App. 1. * In his appeal to the Veterans Court, Mr.
 Hassan sought to challenge the July 25, 2022 decision of
 the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that determined
 that the discontinuance of Veteran Readiness and Employ-
 ment (“VR&E”) services to him under the provisions of 38
 U.S.C. Chapter 31 was improper. Id. The Veterans Court
 dismissed Mr. Hassan’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction be-
 cause Mr. Hassan did not obtain an adverse, final decision
 from the Board. Id. at 1–2. The court explained that 38
 U.S.C. § 7266(a), its jurisdictional statute, requires that a
 Board decision be adverse for a claimant to obtain review
 by the Veterans Court. Id. at 1. Because the July 25, 2022
 Board decision was entirely favorable to Mr. Hassan, there
 was nothing for the court to review. Id. The court noted
 that, if Mr. Hassan was dissatisfied with the service pro-
 vided by the Department of Veterans Affairs through the
 VR&E, he could seek review of those issues. Id. For the
 reasons stated below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
                         DISCUSSION
     Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
 Court is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We have
 jurisdiction to decide an appeal insofar as it presents a
 challenge to the court’s decision regarding a rule of law,

     *  “App.” citations are to the appendix filed with Re-
 spondent-Appellee’s Informal Response Brief, ECF No. 6.
Case: 23-1732    Document: 21       Page: 3   Filed: 02/20/2024

 HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH                                        3

 including a decision about the interpretation or validity of
 any statute or regulation. Id. § 7292(a), (d)(1). However,
 we lack jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a factual
 determination or a challenge to the application of a law or
 regulation to the facts of a particular case, unless the ap-
 peal presents a constitutional issue. Id. § 7292(d)(2).
      We have reviewed the decision of the Veterans Court
 and have considered all the arguments raised by Mr. Has-
 san in his appeal of the court’s decision dismissing his ap-
 peal. Mr. Hassan does not argue that 38 U.S.C. § 7266 is
 invalid or was misinterpreted by the Veterans Court, nor
 does he raise any legitimate constitutional issues. Rather,
 it is clear that Mr. Hassan’s appeal boils down to a chal-
 lenge to factual determinations concerning the feasibility
 of reinstating his computer training; and a challenge to the
 Veterans Court’s application of its jurisdictional statute to
 the facts of his case. Those are matters beyond our juris-
 diction.
                        CONCLUSION
     For the foregoing reasons, we lack jurisdiction to adju-
 dicate Mr. Hassan’s appeal. The appeal is therefore dis-
 missed.
                        DISMISSED
                            COSTS
 No costs.