Case: 23-1843 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 12/08/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TERRIS R. JONES, SR.,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2023-1843
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-660, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch.
______________________
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Terris R. Jones, Sr., appeals a decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans’
Court”), which dismissed an appeal of a remand order of
the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) for lack of juris-
diction. Jones v. McDonough, No. 23-660,
2023 WL
2249242, at *2 (Vet. App. Feb. 28, 2023). For the reasons
set forth below, the dismissal is affirmed.
Case: 23-1843 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 12/08/2023
2 JONES v. MCDONOUGH
I
Mr. Jones served on active duty in the United States
Navy from December 1988 to November 1992. SAppx. 16. 1
In a March 2022 hearing, Mr. Jones testified before a Vet-
erans’ Law Judge to challenge a September 2014 rating de-
cision.
Id. On September 15, 2022, the Board remanded
thirteen entitlement claims to the Agency of Original Ju-
risdiction for further development. SAppx. 15–16.
On October 25, 2022, Mr. Jones appealed the remand
order to the Veterans’ Court by filing a notice of appeal.
SAppx. 1. The Veterans’ Court construed Mr. Jones’ notice
of appeal as also implicating two other Board decisions,
both dated October 4, 2022. SAppx. 1 n.1. The Veterans’
Court ordered that the appeal of the two October 4, 2022
decisions proceed under Veterans’ Court Case No. 22-6388.
SAppx. 1 n.1. 2
Mr. Jones’ appeal of the Board’s September 15, 2022
remand order continued as Veterans’ Court Case No. 23-
660. SAppx. 1. On December 22, 2022, the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs moved to dismiss the appeal arguing that
the September 15, 2022 remand order is not a final decision
over which the Veterans’ Court has jurisdiction, and that
Mr. Jones “has not exhausted his administrative reme-
dies.” SAppx. 1. The Secretary also filed a motion to stay
the proceedings pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss.
SAppx. 2. The Veterans’ Court granted the motion to stay
on February 8, 2023. SAppx. 2.
On February 28, 2023, the Veterans’ Court granted the
motion to dismiss. In that decision, the Veterans’ Court
explained that “[t]he Court’s review is limited by statute to
1 “SAppx.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in this court with its
brief as respondent.
2 Mr. Jones prevailed in his appeal of one of the Oc-
tober 4, 2022 board decisions which was vacated and re-
manded on October 31, 2023, by the Veterans’ Court. Jones
v. McDonough, No. 22-6388,
2023 WL 7135229, at *4 (Vet.
App. Oct. 31, 2023).
Case: 23-1843 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 12/08/2023
JONES v. MCDONOUGH 3
timely appeals from final Board decisions.” SAppx. 2.
Therefore, the Veterans’ Court held that it must dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because “[a] Board re-
mand ‘does not represent a final decision over which [the
Veterans’ Court] has jurisdiction,’ and the Court therefore
does not have jurisdiction to address any argument con-
cerning the claims that the Board remanded on September
15, 2022.” SAppx. 2 (quoting Breeden v. Principi,
17 Vet.
App. 475, 478 (2004)).
The Veterans’ Court also added that it did not have ju-
risdiction to address issues raised in Mr. Jones’ response to
the motion to dismiss related to the “March 2022 Board
hearing” or issues related to the remand of claims that Mr.
Jones alleges were “closed.” SAppx. 2.
The Veterans’ Court entered judgment on March 23,
2023. SAppx. 4. Mr. Jones timely filed his appeal on May
3, 2023, as permitted under
38 U.S.C. § 7292(a).
II
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans’
Court is limited. We have jurisdiction to review a “chal-
lenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any in-
terpretation thereof brought under this section, and to
interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the ex-
tent presented and necessary to a decision.”
38 U.S.C. §
7292(c) (2002); see also Conway v. Principi,
353 F.3d 1369,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004). This court reviews an interpretation
of a statute by the Veterans’ Court de novo. Kirkpatrick v.
Nicholson,
417 F.3d 1361, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The Veterans’ Court’s jurisdiction is limited by statute.
Specifically, “[t]he Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals.”
38 U.S.C. § 7252(a) (1998). A
remand by the Board is not a “decision” under this statute.
See Kirkpatrick,
417 F.3d at 1364;
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)
(2023) (“A remand is in the nature of a preliminary order
and does not constitute a final decision of the Board.”).
Mr. Jones does not challenge the relevant statutory
provisions with respect to the conclusion of the Veterans’
Court that it lacked jurisdiction. Instead, Mr. Jones argues
Case: 23-1843 Document: 17 Page: 4 Filed: 12/08/2023
4 JONES v. MCDONOUGH
that his appeal with the Veterans’ Court was not intended
to challenge the September 15, 2022 remand order but to
report “wrongdoing” by the Board judge. Appellant’s Infor-
mal Reply Br. 5. Mr. Jones alleges “Procedural Due Pro-
cess” violations related to “written notice” for the March
2022 Board hearing and the remand of allegedly “closed
claims.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 1–3, 11. However, Mr.
Jones has not identified a particular jurisdictional basis for
the Veterans’ Court to review his issues in the absence of a
final decision by the Board.
The Veterans’ Court does not have jurisdiction in these
circumstances absent a final decision from the Board. See
AG v. Peake,
536 F.3d 1306, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (vacating
a decision of the Veterans’ Court because a notice issue ren-
dered a Regional Office’s decision “non-final”); Best v.
Brown,
10 Vet. App. 322, 325 (1997) (failure to notify claim-
ant that he was denied service connection for a particular
condition constituted a procedural error under
38 C.F.R. §§
3.103(e) and 3.104(a), rendered the RO’s decision not final,
and deprived the Veterans’ Court of jurisdiction over the
claim).
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The Veterans’ Court’s judgment dismissing Mr. Jones’
appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is affirmed.
COSTS
No costs.
FOR THE COURT
December 8, 2023
Date
