Case: 23-1821 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 12/06/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ROBERT CASTILLO,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2023-1821
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-5169, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
dith, Judge Grant Jaquith, Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
Decided: December 6, 2023
______________________
ROBERT CASTILLO, San Antonio, TX, pro se.
DANIEL BERTONI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH M. HOSFORD, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Case: 23-1821 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 12/06/2023
2 CASTILLO v. MCDONOUGH
Before DYK, REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Robert Castillo appeals pro se a decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that it lacked
jurisdiction over Mr. Castillo’s petition for a writ of manda-
mus. The Veterans Court determined that while the peti-
tion was pending, the Department of Veterans Affairs
granted the relief sought by Mr. Castillo, thereby rendering
Mr. Castillo’s petition moot. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Castillo served in the United States Navy from
1990 to 2003. SAppx60. 1 In October 2020, he submitted a
supplemental compensation form to the Department of
Veterans Affairs (“VA”), in which he argued that a March
8, 2004, rating decision incorrectly applied the schedule for
rating disabilities for “gout, right knee, [and] hearing im-
pairment” issues. SAppx11. He requested that the March
2004 rating decision be revised on grounds of clear and un-
mistakable error or “CUE”. 2 SAppx12. The VA responded
and asked Mr. Castillo to resubmit his request using the
proper form, VA Form 20-0995 or 20-0996. SAppx22–26.
In several exchanges with the VA, Mr. Castillo argued that
his request did not require a specific form. SAppx27;
SAppx29; SAppx39–40.
During this same time period, Mr. Castillo also submit-
ted two VA Form 9s that indicated he sought to appeal the
1 “SAppx” refers to the appendix accompanying the
government’s responsive brief.
2 CUE must be the type of error, which “had it not
been made, would have manifestly changed the outcome at
the time it was made.” Cook v. Principi,
318 F.3d 1334,
1343 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc) (citations omitted); see also
38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(c).
Case: 23-1821 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 12/06/2023
CASTILLO v. MCDONOUGH 3
VA’s response letters to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals
(“Board”). SAppx27; SAppx39. After Mr. Castillo sent his
second VA Form 9, the VA sent Mr. Castillo another letter,
stating that “[w]e received your correspondence indicating
that you would like to file a claim for benefits.” SAppx49.
Despite this, there did not appear to be proceedings before
the Board.
Mr. Castillo filed a petition for a writ of mandamus be-
fore the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims (“Veterans Court”). SAppx1. Mr. Castillo argued
that the VA improperly refused to adjudicate his request
for a review of the March 2004 disability rating decision.
He requested that the Veterans Court order the VA to con-
sider his CUE request in the first instance.
Id. The VA,
however, had instituted a review of Mr. Castillo’s CUE
claim in October 2020. SAppx60. In November 2022, the
VA Regional Office denied Mr. Castillo’s claim. SAppx60–
66. The Veterans Court then dismissed as moot Mr. Cas-
tillo’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Mr. Castillo ap-
peals. We have jurisdiction under
38 U.S.C. § 7292.
DISCUSSION
We agree with the Veterans Court that it lacks juris-
diction over Mr. Castillo’s mandamus petition.
Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits federal court
jurisdiction to cases and controversies. U.S. CONST. art. III,
§ 2. We possess jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s
denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus. See Lamb v.
Principi,
284 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Beasley v.
Shinseki,
709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Mootness,
as a question of law, is reviewed de novo. See Ford Motor
Co. v. United States,
688 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Mr. Castillo petitioned the Veterans Court to direct the
VA to adjudicate his request for a review of the March 2004
rating decision. SAppx1, 11–12. But the record shows that
in November 2022, while his petition was pending before
Case: 23-1821 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 12/06/2023
4 CASTILLO v. MCDONOUGH
the Veterans Court, the VA considered and denied his CUE
claim concerning the March 2004 rating decision.
SAppx60–66. As a result, the VA provided the relief
Mr. Castillo sought in his petition for a writ of mandamus.
The Veterans Court correctly determined it lacked jurisdic-
tion due to mootness because the relief sought by Mr. Cas-
tillo has been satisfied. Monk v. Shulkin,
855 F.3d 1312,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We affirm the Veterans Court’s dis-
missal for lack of jurisdiction because a case “that becomes
moot is no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for Article III
purposes.” Mote v. Wilkie,
976 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (citation omitted).
We note that, depending on the circumstances,
Mr. Castillo, may have an avenue to appeal to the Board
the merits of the VA’s November 2022 decision.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Castillo’s other arguments and
find them unpersuasive. We affirm the Veterans Court’s
decision that it lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Castillo’s peti-
tion for a writ of mandamus.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
