Case: 23-1837 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 12/12/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MANUEL GONZALEZ, JR.,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2023-1837
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-5531, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
dith.
______________________
Decided: December 12, 2023
______________________
MANUEL GONZALEZ, JR., San Antonio, TX, pro se.
KELLY GEDDES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Case: 23-1837 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 12/12/2023
2 GONZALEZ v. MCDONOUGH
Before LOURIE, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Manuel Gonzalez, Jr. appeals an order of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans
Court) that dismissed his petitions for extraordinary relief
in the nature of a writ of mandamus. Gonzalez v.
McDonough, No. 22-5531,
2022 WL 16706691, at *2 (Vet.
App. Nov. 4, 2022) (Veterans Court Decision). Because we
lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Gonzalez served in the United States Air Force
from June 1996 to June 2000. On September 12, 2022,
Mr. Gonzalez filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. The
petition appeared to ask the Veterans Court to compel the
regional office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
to accept his March 2022 claim of clear and unmistakable
error (CUE) on rating decisions from March 2011 and Feb-
ruary 2013 that denied entitlement to benefits. The Veter-
ans Court requested additional information and in
response, Mr. Gonzalez filed a supplemental petition on
October 3, 2022.
After reviewing the relevant documents, on October 12,
2022, the Veterans Court issued an order noting that when
the VA informed Mr. Gonzalez he was required to file his
claim on a specific form, the VA appears to have construed
Mr. Gonzalez’s CUE claim as a claim for benefits. Under
the VA Adjudication Procedures Manual, a claim for bene-
fits requires a specific form in order to proceed, but a CUE
motion does not. In response, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs conceded that the VA had in fact mistakenly in-
formed Mr. Gonzalez that filing a CUE motion required a
specific form. The Secretary also noted that Mr. Gonzalez’s
CUE motion had been accepted and “referred to the rating
activity for review.” Veterans Court Decision,
2022 WL
16706691, at *1.
Case: 23-1837 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 12/12/2023
GONZALEZ v. MCDONOUGH 3
On November 4, 2022, the Veterans Court dismissed
Mr. Gonzalez’s petitions as moot. The Veterans Court de-
termined “the petitioner has received the relief he sought:
VA has recognized that he need not file a specific form to
allege CUE and has accepted his CUE motion for pro-
cessing.” Id. at *2.
DISCUSSION
The scope of our review of a Veterans Court decision is
limited. We have “jurisdiction to review and decide any
challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any
interpretation thereof.”
38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). Except to the
extent that an appeal presents a constitutional issue, we
“may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination,
or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the
facts of a particular case.”
Id. § 7292(d)(2).
Mr. Gonzalez appears to argue that the Veterans
Court’s dismissal is contrary to
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (the All
Writs Act) and Article III of the Constitution. Appellant’s
Informal Br. 1. Mr. Gonzalez also appears to argue that
the regional office intake center violated its responsibility
to assist claimants in obtaining evidence necessary to sub-
stantiate claims under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(1). Id. at 8.
However, the Veterans Court did not interpret or review
the validity of any statute or regulation in dismissing the
petitions as moot. Instead, the Veterans Court made a fac-
tual determination that the regional office accepted
Mr. Gonzalez’s CUE motion for processing, which we have
no jurisdiction to review. Moreover, while Mr. Gonzalez os-
tensibly raises a constitutional challenge to the Veterans
Court’s decision, Mr. Gonzalez’s mere reference to Article
III “does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise
lack.” Flores v. Nicholson,
476 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
2007). To the extent Mr. Gonzalez argues the details of his
CUE motion, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such
arguments. See Lamb v. Principi,
284 F.3d 1378, 1384
Case: 23-1837 Document: 17 Page: 4 Filed: 12/12/2023
4 GONZALEZ v. MCDONOUGH
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that a writ of mandamus can-
not be used as a substitute for an appeal).
CONCLUSION
We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the appeal of the Vet-
erans Court’s decision dismissing Mr. Gonzalez’s manda-
mus petitions as moot.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
