John Hassan v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JOHN HASSAN,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2023-1732
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-4742, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: February 20, 2024
______________________
J OHN HASSAN, Center Moriches, NY, pro se.
MATNEY ELIZABETH ROLFE, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, P ATRICIA
M. MCCARTHY ; RICHARD STEPHEN HUBER , Office of General
Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs,
Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 23-1732 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 02/20/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH 2
Before P ROST , SCHALL , and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
D ECISION
John Hassan appeals the order of the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”)
that granted the Secretary’s motion to dismiss his appeal
in Hassan v. McDonough, No. 22-4742 (Vet. App. Feb. 9,
2023), App. 1.* In his appeal to the Veterans Court, Mr.
Hassan sought to challenge the July 25, 2022 decision of
the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that determined
that the discontinuance of Veteran Readiness and Employ-
ment (“VR&E”) services to him under the provisions of 38
U.S.C. Chapter 31 was improper. Id. The Veterans Court
dismissed Mr. Hassan’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction be-
cause Mr. Hassan did not obtain an adverse, final decision
from the Board. Id. at 1–2. The court explained that 38
U.S.C. § 7266(a), its jurisdictional statute, requires that a
Board decision be adverse for a claimant to obtain review
by the Veterans Court. Id. at 1. Because the July 25, 2022
Board decision was entirely favorable to Mr. Hassan, there
was nothing for the court to review. Id. The court noted
that, if Mr. Hassan was dissatisfied with the service pro-
vided by the Department of Veterans Affairs through the
VR&E, he could seek review of those issues. Id. For the
reasons stated below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
D ISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We have
jurisdiction to decide an appeal insofar as it presents a
challenge to the court’s decision regarding a rule of law,
* “App.” citations are to the appendix filed with Re-
spondent-Appellee’s Informal Response Brief, ECF No. 6.
Case: 23-1732 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 02/20/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH 3
including a decision about the interpretation or validity of
any statute or regulation. Id. § 7292(a), (d)(1). However,
we lack jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a factual
determination or a challenge to the application of a law or
regulation to the facts of a particular case, unless the ap-
peal presents a constitutional issue. Id. § 7292(d)(2).
We have reviewed the decision of the Veterans Court
and have considered all the arguments raised by Mr. Has-
san in his appeal of the court’s decision dismissing his ap-
peal. Mr. Hassan does not argue that 38 U.S.C. § 7266 is
invalid or was misinterpreted by the Veterans Court, nor
does he raise any legitimate constitutional issues. Rather,
it is clear that Mr. Hassan’s appeal boils down to a chal-
lenge to factual determinations concerning the feasibility
of reinstating his computer training; and a challenge to the
Veterans Court’s application of its jurisdictional statute to
the facts of his case. Those are matters beyond our juris-
diction.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we lack jurisdiction to adju-
dicate Mr. Hassan’s appeal. The appeal is therefore dis-
missed.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 23-1732 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 02/20/2024

-- 3 of 3 --