Court Opinion

ID: 9909463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 16:01:42.98622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:28.249496
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1844    Document: 20    Page: 1   Filed: 12/13/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                  ROGELIO G. HARO,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                            v.

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

                        2023-1844
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 22-5359, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
 Jr.
                 ______________________

                Decided: December 13, 2023
                  ______________________

    ROGELIO G. HARO, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

     DANIEL HOFFMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, DEBORAH A. BYNUM, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________
Case: 23-1844    Document: 20      Page: 2    Filed: 12/13/2023

 2                                       HARO v. MCDONOUGH

     Before REYNA, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Rogelio Haro appeals pro se a decision of the United
 States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying his
 petition for a writ of mandamus. We affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Mr. Haro served in the United States Marine Corps
 from August 1987 to January 2012. Appx23. 1 Mr. Haro
 subsequently requested disability benefits for various con-
 ditions and received, relevant here, two rating decisions is-
 sued respectively in August 2012 and September 2018.
 Appx23–24.
      In early 2022, Mr. Haro requested that the United
 States Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) revise the
 2012 and 2018 rating decisions based on alleged “clear and
 unmistakable error” (“CUE”). Appx12. In a May 2022 rat-
 ing decision, the VA regional office addressed Mr. Haro’s
 request and denied his claims for increased disability ben-
 efits. Appx23–32. Along with a notice of the decision, the
 VA explained to Mr. Haro several options for seeking fur-
 ther review and identified the applicable form to use for
 each option. Appx36; Appx44–45. In particular, Mr. Haro
 was advised of VA Form 10182, the correct form for appeals
 to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). Appx36;
 Appx44.
    In June 2022, Mr. Haro sought to appeal to the Board
 and submitted a VA Form 9. Appx56. In July 2022, the
 VA notified Mr. Haro that he used an incorrect form and
 again directed him to the correct forms to use for the

     1   “Appx” refers to the appendix attached to Respond-
 ent’s Informal Brief.
Case: 23-1844     Document: 20      Page: 3     Filed: 12/13/2023

 HARO v. MCDONOUGH                                             3

 various review options. Appx70–71. Mr. Haro did not re-
 file his appeal using the correct form.
     Two months later, in September 2022, Mr. Haro peti-
 tioned for a writ of mandamus from the United States
 Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”).
 Appx1. Mr. Haro alleged that the VA refused to process his
 CUE claims challenging the 2012 and 2018 rating deci-
 sions. Id. Mr. Haro further claimed that the VA would not
 act on his request unless he used the correct form, which
 he alleged required him to involuntarily participate in the
 system established by the Veterans Appeals Improvement
 and Modernization Act (“AMA”). Id.
      The Veterans Court denied Mr. Haro’s petition because
 it failed to meet the requirements for the extradentary re-
 lief of mandamus. Appx2–3; Appx73. The Veterans Court
 explained that the VA’s May 2022 decision adjudicated
 Mr. Haro’s CUE claims and that alternative means re-
 mained available for him to pursue review of that decision.
 Appx2. The Veterans Court determined that the VA’s di-
 rection for Mr. Haro to use the correct AMA form was
 proper and adhered to the pertinent regulations. Id.
 Mr. Haro subsequently sought a full court review, which
 the Veterans Court denied. Appx73.
     This appeal followed.
                     STANDARD OF REVIEW
     Our review of the Veterans Court’s decisions is limited
 by statute. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). We have jurisdic-
 tion to decide questions of law, including “interpreting con-
 stitutional and statutory provisions.” Id. Absent a
 constitutional issue, we may not review challenges to fac-
 tual determinations, or challenges to “a law or regulation
 as applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2).
     Under the All Writs Act, a petitioner may seek a writ
 of mandamus from the Veterans Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
 We review the Veterans Court’s denial of a petition for writ
Case: 23-1844    Document: 20      Page: 4    Filed: 12/13/2023

 4                                       HARO v. MCDONOUGH

 of mandamus for abuse of discretion. Hargrove v. Shinseki,
 629 F.3d 1377, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Lamb v. Principi, 284
 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2002). A writ of mandamus is
 an extraordinary and drastic form of relief. Cheney v. U.S.
 Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). A petitioner seeking
 a writ must show that he has no other adequate means to
 seek the desired relief. Id. This requirement serves to en-
 sure the writ is not used to substitute for the regular ap-
 peal procedures. Id. The petitioner must also demonstrate
 that he has a clear right to the writ and that such relief is
 proper under the circumstances. Id. at 381; Beasley v.
 Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
                         DISCUSSION
     The core issue on appeal is whether the Veterans Court
 abused its discretion when it denied Mr. Haro’s petition for
 a writ of mandamus. Appellant Br. 1–2; Reply Br. 2–3. We
 conclude that the Veterans Court did not abuse its discre-
 tion in denying Mr. Haro’s petition.
      The Veterans Court correctly determined that the cir-
 cumstances did not warrant issuing a writ. This case ulti-
 mately arises from Mr. Haro’s disagreement with the VA’s
 adjudication of his CUE claims in the May 2022 rating de-
 cision. When the VA notified Mr. Haro of its decision, it
 explained the available avenues of further review if he dis-
 agreed with that decision. Appx36; Appx44–45. The VA
 identified each review option and the corresponding form
 to use. See, e.g., Appx36. After Mr. Haro sought to appeal
 to the Board using an incorrect form, the VA notified him
 of his error. Appx56; Appx70–71. The VA again directed
 him to the correct form(s) and additional resources for as-
 sistance. Appx70–71. As the Veterans Court noted, to
 challenge the VA’s decision, Mr. Haro could appeal to the
 Board or pursue the other review avenues by completing
 one of the forms the VA identified for him. Appx2. We dis-
 cern no abuse of discretion in the Veterans Court’s
Case: 23-1844     Document: 20     Page: 5    Filed: 12/13/2023

 HARO v. MCDONOUGH                                           5

 determination that Mr. Haro failed to establish a “lack of
 adequate alternative means to seek his desired relief.” Id.
      Additionally, we reject Mr. Haro’s allegation that the
 VA improperly attempted to force him to participate in the
 AMA system. Congress enacted the AMA to reform the
 previous VA administrative appeals system, the legacy sys-
 tem, so that it better serves the veteran community. See,
 e.g., Mil.-Veterans Advoc. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affs., 7 F.4th
 1110, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Central to the AMA reforms,
 Congress provided veteran claimants three procedural
 lanes to obtain further review of their claims, as opposed to
 one single pathway available under the legacy system. Id.
 at 1119. If a claimant received a notice of the VA’s rating
 decision before the AMA became effective on February 19,
 2019, the claimant may opt to participate in the new AMA
 system. Mattox v. McDonough, 56 F.4th 1369, 1375 (Fed.
 Cir. 2023). But for “all claims,” “requests for reopening,”
 and “requests for revision” based on CUE, if the VA issues
 notice of its initial decision on or after February 19, 2019,
 “[t]he modernized review system [under the AMA] applies.”
 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400(a).
     Here, Mr. Haro submitted his CUE revision request in
 early 2022 and the VA notified Mr. Haro of its rating deci-
 sion addressing his request in May 2022, well after the
 AMA became effective in 2019. By plain text of the regula-
 tion, review of the May 2022 decision must be processed
 through the AMA system, which in turn requires submis-
 sion of the correct forms. Id. The VA, on at least two occa-
 sions, provided Mr. Haro detailed guidance and
 instructions on the available review channels, what forms
 to use, and where to download the forms. See, e.g., Appx36;
 Appx70–71. The Veterans Court’s determination that
 Mr. Haro was required to use the correct appeal form was
 not improper. Appx2 (citing 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400); see also
 Resendez v. McDonough, No. 2023-1819, 2023 WL 7381454,
 at *2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2023).
Case: 23-1844    Document: 20      Page: 6   Filed: 12/13/2023

 6                                       HARO v. MCDONOUGH

     Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Vet-
 erans Court did not abuse its discretion in denying
 Mr. Haro’s petition for a writ of mandamus. We reject
 Mr. Haro’s attempt to use the writ as a substitute for the
 appeal processes mandated by Congress and prescribed un-
 der the governing regulations. See Beasley, 709 F.3d at
 1159.
     We note that Mr. Haro’s informal brief also references
 the Board’s adjudication of his CUE claims and regulatory
 provisions regarding CUE. See, e.g., Appellant Br. 2; Reply
 Br. 6–7. To the extent Mr. Haro intended to raise an issue
 as to the merits of his CUE claims, we lack jurisdiction to
 entertain such a contention because it rests on factual de-
 terminations and the application of law to facts. 38 U.S.C.
 § 7292(d)(2); Newhouse v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1298, 1302
 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Furthermore, such a contention was
 never properly presented to the Board or to the Veterans
 Court. It is thus not properly before this court. See
 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a), 7292(a).
                        CONCLUSION
    We have considered Mr. Haro’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the
 Veterans Court’s denial of Mr. Haro’s petition for a writ of
 mandamus.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.