Rodolfo Rivera Munoz v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RODOLFO RIVERA MUNOZ,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-1628
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20-2249, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: October 12, 2022
______________________
RODOLFO R IVERA MUNOZ, II, San Antonio, TX, pro se.
N ATHANAEL YALE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA B URKE, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY ; CHRISTINA L YNN G REGG, BRIAN D. G RIFFIN, Of-
fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet-
erans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 22-1628 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 10/12/2022

-- 1 of 3 --

MUNOZ v. MCDONOUGH 2
Before L OURIE, T ARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Rodolfo Rivera Munoz (“Munoz”) appeals a decision of
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
(“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court dismissed
Munoz’s appeal of a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
peals after determining that his appeal was untimely un-
der 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) and not subject to equitable tolling.
Our jurisdiction and ability to review the Veterans
Court in these matters is limited by statute. While a party
may obtain review of a Veterans Court’s decision on a rule
of law or of any statute or regulation or any interpretation
thereof, other than a determination as to a factual matter,
“that was relied on by the Court in making the decision,”
38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), and we have “exclusive jurisdiction to
review and decide any challenge to the validity of any stat-
ute or regulation or any interpretation thereof brought un-
der this section, and to interpret constitutional and
statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary
to a decision,” id. § 7292(c), we “may not review (A) a chal-
lenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law
or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case,”
unless the appeal presents a constitutional issue, id.
§ 7292(d)(2).
Munoz does not raise any reviewable challenge. The
Veterans Court dismissed Munoz’s appeal on the ground
that Munoz filed it too late under 38 U.S.C. § 7266 and
made no adequate showing to support equitable tolling.
The lateness is not in dispute, and Munoz does not chal-
lenge as legally erroneous the standard the Veterans Court
articulated for the non-constitutional doctrine of equitable
tolling, which requires proof of due diligence, an extraordi-
nary circumstance, and a causal connection between that
circumstance and the delay in appealing. See, e.g., Al-
dridge v. McDonald, 837 F.3d 1261, 1265-66 (Fed. Cir.
Case: 22-1628 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 10/12/2022

-- 2 of 3 --

MUNOZ v. MCDONOUGH 3
2016); Toomer v. McDonald, 783 F.3d 1229, 1238 (Fed. Cir.
2015). All he challenges is the application of that standard
to the facts of his case, including the various circumstances
he invoked to support equitable tolling. Examining this
challenge would require the application of law to fact, a
task that is outside our jurisdiction here. See, e.g., Leonard
v. Gober, 223 F.3d 1374, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
We have considered Munoz’s other issues and find that
none of them affect the outcome. Accordingly, because we
lack jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, we must dismiss
the appeal.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 22-1628 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 10/12/2022

-- 3 of 3 --