Chriss H. Christensen v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

# NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

CHRISS H. CHRISTENSEN,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.

2010-7032

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in case no. 09-2618, Judge Robert N.
Davis.

ON MOTION

Before RADER, FRIEDMAN, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to summarily
affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims in this case.

The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims dismissed Chriss H. Christensen's appeal for lack

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="CHRISTENSEN v. SHINSEKI" -->

of jurisdiction. The court determined that Christensen
failed to file a notice of appeal at the court within the 120-
day statutory time period for seeking review of the Board
of Veterans' Appeals decision. Christensen filed an
appeal with this court seeking review of that decision.

The court's jurisdiction to review decisions of the
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is limited. See
Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
(en banc). Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), this court has
jurisdiction over rules of law or the validity of any statute
or regulation, or an interpretation thereof relied on by the
court in its decision. This court may also entertain
challenges to the validity of a statute or regulation, and to
interpret constitutional and statutory provisions as
needed for resolution of the matter. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c).
In contrast, except where an appeal presents a
constitutional question, this court lacks jurisdiction over
challenges to factual determinations or laws or
regulations as applied to the particular case. 38 U.S.C. §
7292(d)(2).

In his informal brief, Christensen appears to argue
only that he is entitled to benefits. However, because the
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissed
Christensen's appeal in that court for lack of jurisdiction
and did not address the merits of his claim for benefits,
issues concerning Christensen's claim for benefits are not
before us. To the extent that Christensen seeks to
challenge whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction
over his appeal, we summarily affirm. Christensen filed
his notice of appeal more than seven months after the
120-day appeal period expired. We thus grant the
Secretary's motion to affirm the judgment of the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Accordingly,

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="CHRISTENSEN v. SHINSEKI" -->

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary's motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

MAY 1 9 2010

Date

/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk

cc: Chriss H. Christensen
Richard P. Schroeder, Esq.

s8

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
MAY 1 9 2010

JAN HORBALY
CLERK