Case: 12-7090 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 01/03/2013
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
__________________________
JOSE G. APOLLO, SR.,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee.
__________________________
2012-7090
__________________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in case no. 11-2404, Judge Mary J.
Schoelen.
__________________________
ON MOTION
__________________________
Before BRYSON, LINN and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Chapter 31 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code establishes a
program of training and rehabilitation to assist veterans
in overcoming employment handicaps. In November
2005, the Department of Veterans Affairs, through a
Case: 12-7090 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 01/03/2013
JOSE APOLLO, SR. v. SHINSEKI 2
decision of a regional office (RO), granted veteran Jose
Apollo entitlement to such benefits. The RO was also
directed by subsequent order of the United States Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) to adju-
dicate whether Apollo was entitled to any amount of
reimbursement for prior vocational activities.
Apparently unsatisfied with the RO’s initial response,
Apollo filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the
Veterans Court, asking the court to direct immediate
payment of $59,000 in reimbursed expenses. When the
court denied that petition, holding that Apollo could not
use the writ as a substitute for the VA appeals process, he
filed this appeal seeking reversal.
In seeking that relief, Apollo runs up against a highly
deferential standard of review. This court reviews denial
of a petition for a writ of mandamus by the Veterans
Court for an abuse of discretion. Lamb v. Principi,
284
F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In turn, the Veterans
Court may only grant this extraordinary remedy if the
petitioner has no other adequate alternative means to
attain the desired relief and petitioner has established a
clear and undisputable right to relief. See Cheney v. U.S.
Dist. Court for D.C.,
542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004).
We cannot say that the Veterans Court abused its dis-
cretion in refusing to issue the writ in this case. On
remand from the Veterans Court, the RO took action on
Apollo’s request for reimbursement. To the extent Apollo
disagrees with that determination, he may raise such
disagreement through the VA appeals process, and ulti-
mately before this court on proper appeal. Thus, the
conclusion that Apollo has alternative means to attain
review of his reimbursement request is well supported by
the facts of this case, and the court’s decision not to issue
mandamus on those grounds was not an abuse of discre-
tion.
Case: 12-7090 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 01/03/2013
3 JOSE APOLLO, SR. v. SHINSEKI
Apart from the merits of his case, Apollo argues that
Judge Schoelen of the Veterans Court should have
recused herself from hearing his request for mandamus
and violated several statutes in deciding his case. While
we have considered those arguments, we are not per-
suaded that they have any merit.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The judgment of the Veterans Court is af-
firmed.
(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.
(3) All pending motions are moot.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk
s19
