Roland Castro v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ROLAND CASTRO,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1542
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-507, Judge Grant Jaquith.
______________________
Decided: July 17, 2024
______________________
ROLAND CASTRO, Lytle, TX, pro se.
STEPHEN J. SMITH , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON , ERIC P. BRUSKIN, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before H UGHES , L INN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1542 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 07/17/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

CASTRO v. MCDONOUGH 2
P ER CURIAM .
Roland Castro appeals the decision of the Court of Ap-
peals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) dismissing in
part and denying in part his petition for a writ of manda-
mus. He also appeals the Veterans Court’s denial of his
motion for full court review. We affirm.
I
Mr. Castro served in the United States Air Force be-
tween August 12 and December 4, 1980; October 6, 1983
and January 5, 1987; and February 27, 1987 and May 16,
1988. Mr. Castro filed a claim with the Department of Vet-
erans Affairs (“VA”) seeking to increase his disability rat-
ing for spinal conditions and to obtain service-connected
benefits for non-spinal conditions. In a decision issued in
May 2007 (“2007 Decision”), the VA denied both of Mr. Cas-
tro’s claims.
Eleven years later, in March 2018, Mr. Castro filed a
motion with the VA alleging that the 2007 Decision was
premised on clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”). In
denying the CUE motion, the VA issued two decisions.
First, in 2018, the regional office (“RO”) found no CUE in
the VA’s adjudication of Mr. Castro’s spinal claims (“2018
Decision”). Second, in a decision issued in 2023, the RO
found no CUE with respect to the VA’s adjudication of Mr.
Castro’s non-spinal claims (“2023 Decision”). Mr. Castro
timely appealed the 2018 Decision to the Board of Veter-
ans’ Appeals (“Board”).
In early 2023, while Mr. Castro’s appeal of the RO’s
2018 Decision was pending before the Board, but before the
RO had issued its 2023 Decision, Mr. Castro filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus in the Veterans Court, contending
that the VA was unreasonably delaying and refusing to act
on his CUE motion. After the RO handed down its 2023
Decision, the Veterans Court disposed of the petition, dis-
missing it in part and denying it in remaining part.
Case: 24-1542 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 07/17/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

CASTRO v. MCDONOUGH 3
Specifically, the Veterans Court dismissed as moot the por-
tion of the mandamus petition seeking a decision on Mr.
Castro’s non-spinal claims, as the RO had by then issued
its 2023 Decision affirming denial of those claims, and the
Veterans Court denied the portion of the petition alleging
unreasonable delay in adjudication of his spinal claim.
S.A. 4-5.1
After the Veterans Court denied Mr. Castro’s motion
for review by the full court, Mr. Castro timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (c).
II
In appeals from the Veterans Court, we have jurisdic-
tion to “decide all relevant questions of law, including in-
terpreting constitutional and statutory provisions.” 38
U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). Except where a constitutional claim is
raised, we “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual de-
termination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as
applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2).
We have “jurisdiction to review the [Veterans Court’s]
decision whether to grant a mandamus petition that raises
a non-frivolous legal question.” 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” but may
only “determine whether the petitioner has satisfied the le-
gal standard for issuing the writ.” Id.
III
Mr. Castro failed to establish he was entitled to a writ
of mandamus.
First, the Veterans Court correctly dismissed as moot
the portion of Mr. Castro’s petition pertaining to his non-
1 “S.A. __” refers to the supplemental appendix of at-
tached to the government’s brief (ECF No. 7).
Case: 24-1542 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 07/17/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

CASTRO v. MCDONOUGH 4
spinal claim. By the time the Veterans Court was consid-
ering the petition, the RO had issued its 2023 Decision,
which adjudicated the non-spinal claims – and that adjudi-
cation was the very relief Mr. Castro sought via his peti-
tion. Hence, this aspect of the petition was moot. See Monk
v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d 1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Second, in evaluating Mr. Castro’s contention that the
Board unreasonably delayed adjudication of his appeal of
the RO’s 2018 Decision, pertaining to his spinal claim, the
Veterans Court applied the correct legal standard, i.e., the
one set out in Telecommunications Research & Action Cen-
ter v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 79 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“TRAC”),
which we adopted in Martin v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338,
1348 (Fed. Cir. 2018). To the extent he challenges the Vet-
erans Court’s specific analysis of the TRAC factors and the
court’s weighing of those factors, Mr. Castro has not iden-
tified a non-frivolous legal issue within our jurisdiction to
review. We likewise lack jurisdiction to entertain Mr. Cas-
tro’s invitation to review the Veterans Court’s application
of various statutes and regulations to the facts of his case,
as again he makes no non-frivolous argument that the Vet-
erans Court made an error of law. See e.g., Opening Br.
at 1 (faulting Veterans Court’s application of “Section
7261(b)(2) (Scope of Review),” “Rule 35(a)(1)(A),” “Article
III of the Constitution,” “28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651(a),” “38 C.F.R.
Sec. 3.105(a),” and “38 U.S.C. Section 7292(c)”); see also
Beasley, 709 F.3d at 1158 (“[W]e do not interfere with the
[Veteran’s Court’s] role as the final appellate arbiter of the
facts underlying a veteran’s claim or the application of vet-
erans’ benefits law to the particular facts of a veteran’s
case.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the Veterans
Court’s decision denying Mr. Castro’s petition.
IV
Mr. Castro further contends that the Veterans Court’s
denial of his motion for full court review is
Case: 24-1542 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 07/17/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

CASTRO v. MCDONOUGH 5
unconstitutional. Veterans Court Rule 35 “establishes a
procedure for requesting panel and then full court review
of a single judge decision,” and “[d]enial of such requests
does not of itself violate due process.” Arnesen v. Principi,
300 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Mr. Cas-
tro has identified no error in the Veterans Court’s denial of
Mr. Castro’s motion for full court review.
V
We have considered Mr. Castro’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. The Veterans Court’s deci-
sion is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1542 Document: 18 Page: 5 Filed: 07/17/2024

-- 5 of 5 --