John Patrick Hassan v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JOHN PATRICK HASSAN,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1013
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-4733, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: June 5, 2024
______________________
J OHN HASSAN, Center Moriches, NY, pro se.
D ANIEL H OFFMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. B OYNTON, P ATRICIA M. MCC ARTHY , L OREN MISHA
P REHEIM .
______________________
Before L OURIE, CLEVENGER , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1013 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH 2
P ER CURIAM
John Patrick Hassan appeals pro se from the order of
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
(“Veterans Court”) that denied his petition for extraordi-
nary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus. Hassan v.
McDonough, No. 23-4733, 2023 WL 5364049 (Vet. App.
Aug. 22, 2023) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
The present appeal arises from a dispute between Has-
san and the Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”) over
a mid-June 2023 decision by the VA to deny his request for
an iPad. See Appellant’s Inf. Br. at 1; Decision at *1. Has-
san’s VA social worker declined to request an iPad for his
use because, based on the social worker’s understanding,
Hassan wished to use the iPad for personal hobbies rather
than telehealth services. Decision at *1. Two weeks after
this interaction, Hassan submitted a Notice of Disagree-
ment (“NOD”) to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the
“Board”), initiating an appeal of the social worker’s deci-
sion. Id.
On July 24, Hassan inquired about the status of his ap-
peal. Id. He was informed by Board personnel that they
had no record of receiving his NOD. Id. Four days later,
on July 28, after no further update, Hassan filed a petition
with the Veterans Court seeking a writ of mandamus or-
dering the Board to acknowledge and docket his appeal. Id.
Shortly thereafter, Hassan received a July 31, 2023 letter
from the Board informing him that that it had received his
NOD on July 5, but that it needed time to gather additional
information before determining if it could accept his NOD.
Id.
The Veterans Court then determined that Hassan had
not shown a clear and indisputable right to the extraordi-
nary relief of a writ of mandamus. Id. at *2. It noted that
Case: 24-1013 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 06/05/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH 3
within one month of submitting his NOD, Hassan received
acknowledgement from the Board of receipt of his appeal
and advised him that it was working to determine whether
or not the appeal could properly be docketed. Id. The Vet-
erans Court concluded that the time for the Board to com-
plete its docketing task had “not yet become unreasonable,
especially given the apparent novelty of the appeal issue.”
Id. It therefore denied Hassan’s petition. Id. Hassan
timely appealed the Veterans Court’s decision to this court.
D ISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited by statute. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We may
review the validity of a decision with respect to a rule of
law or interpretation of a statute or regulation that was
relied upon by the Veterans Court in making its decision.
38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). However, except with respect to con-
stitutional issues, we may not review challenges to factual
determinations or challenges to the application of a law or
regulation to the facts. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). That ex-
tends to our review of the Veterans Court’s decision to
grant or deny a writ of mandamus, as “[i]t is well estab-
lished that the [All Writs Act] does not expand a court’s
jurisdiction.” Cox v. West, 149 F.3d 1360, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
1998). We may review non-frivolous legal questions raised
in the petition and “whether the petitioner has satisfied the
legal standard for issuing the writ.” Beasley v. Shinseki,
709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013). However, “[w]e may
not review the factual merits of the veteran’s claim.” Id.
The Veterans Court reviewed the facts of the case, ap-
plied the legal standard for unreasonable delay, and found,
based upon that application of law to facts, that Hassan
failed to establish entitlement to a writ. See Decision at *2
(“Having considered the chronology of events at issue here,
as well as all the surrounding circumstances, the Court is
not persuaded that the current situation reflects the un-
lawful withholding or unreasonable delay of action by the
Case: 24-1013 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 06/05/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH 4
Board under the factors set forth in Martin v. O’Rourke,
891 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2018).”).
Hassan appears to dispute only the facts associated
with the VA’s decision to deny his request for an iPad. See
Appellant’s Inf. Br. at 1–3. He makes no arguments relat-
ing to his legal right to a writ of mandamus or the legal
standard for unreasonable delay cited by the Veterans
Court. See id. Hassan invokes various constitution princi-
ples in his briefing, arguing that the denial the device was
“devoid of due process and equal protection.” Id. at 2. How-
ever, mere “characterization of that question as constitu-
tional in nature does not confer upon us jurisdiction.”
Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Ac-
cordingly, we lack jurisdiction over Hassan’s appeal.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Hassan’s other arguments and
find that none raises a nonfrivolous issue over which we
can assert jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, we dis-
miss Hassan’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No Costs.
Case: 24-1013 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 06/05/2024

-- 4 of 4 --