Case: 22-1506 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 07/07/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GILBERT D. DAVIS,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-1506
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 21-7631, Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
Decided: July 7, 2022
______________________
GILBERT D. DAVIS, Aurora, CO, pro se.
ROBERT R. KIEPURA, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before NEWMAN, LINN, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1506 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 07/07/2022
2 DAVIS v. MCDONOUGH
PER CURIAM.
Gilbert Davis, an Air Force veteran, appeals the Veter-
ans Court’s denial of Davis’s petition for writ of mandamus
for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies with re-
spect to the Regional Office’s June 2018 and February 2012
rating decisions.
This Court’s jurisdiction to review Veterans Court de-
cisions is limited by statute. Wanless v. Shinseki,
618 F.3d
1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Absent a constitutional issue,
this Court “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual de-
termination, 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); Wanless,
618 F.3d at 1336. This court’s
limited jurisdiction likewise applies to our review of the
Veterans Court’s decision not to issue a writ of mandamus.
Beasley v. Shinseki,
709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
To obtain that remedy, the petitioner must show, inter alia,
that there are no adequate alternative legal channels
through which he may obtain relief. See Cheney v. U.S.
Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia,
542 U.S. 367, 380–81
(2004); Hargrove v. Shinseki,
629 F.3d 1377, 1378 (Fed.
Cir. 2011).
Davis contends that his due process rights were some-
how violated but never explains how the denial of his peti-
tion violated those rights. A generalized allegation of this
sort is “constitutional” in name only and is not within our
jurisdiction to review. Helfer v. West,
174 F.3d 1332, 1335
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (finding that the characterization of an is-
sue “as constitutional in nature does not confer upon us ju-
risdiction that we otherwise lack”).
Davis argues that the Regional Office’s rating decisions
involved the interpretation of
38 C.F.R. § 3.103, the lack of
consideration of
38 C.F.R. § 3.105, and the government’s
failure to provide notice of a reduction in his benefits. The
government argues in response that Davis could have and
should have pursued these arguments by way of appeal to
Case: 22-1506 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 07/07/2022
DAVIS v. MCDONOUGH 3
the Board of Veterans Appeals. Moreover, the government
contends that the availability of the normal appeal process
forecloses recourse by way of a petition for mandamus.
The Veterans Court concluded that Davis failed to pro-
vide factual support for the argument that the normal ap-
peals process was unavailable to Davis to contest both the
February 2012 and June 2018 decisions as well as the al-
leged lack of notice. In reaching that conclusion, the Vet-
erans Court applied the law to the facts before it. This is
not a case like Beasley v. Shinseki, where the veteran’s
challenge to the adequacy of a remedy depends upon a de-
termination “regarding the scope of the legal obligation im-
posed on the [Department of Veterans Affairs].” See 709
F.3d at 1157. Davis raises no challenge to the validity or
interpretation of any statute or regulation, but instead con-
tests the Veterans Court’s application of the law to the
facts. Such a challenge is beyond our jurisdiction to review.
For that reason, we must dismiss the appeal.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
