Kevin L. Perry v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
KEVIN L. PERRY,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-2051
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 24-3509, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
Jr.
______________________
Decided: April 10, 2025
______________________
K EVIN L ENARD P ERRY , El Centro, CA, pro se.
ELIZABETH M ARIE D URFEE P ULLIN, Commercial Litiga-
tion Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also
represented by BRIAN M. B OYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN,
P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY , L OREN MISHA P REHEIM .
______________________
Case: 24-2051 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

PERRY v. COLLINS 2
Before D YK, REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Mr. Perry appeals pro se a final order of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Veterans
Court denied Mr. Perry’s petition for extraordinary relief.
For the following reasons, we dismiss Mr. Perry’s present
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Perry previously served on active duty in the
United States Army. Mr. Perry has an extensive history of
pursuing claims for disability compensation primarily re-
lating to a skin disorder, among other conditions. This ex-
tensive history led to a 2005 Board of Veterans’ Appeals
(“Board”) decision that, as relevant here, denied
Mr. Perry’s claims for (1) an increased disability rating for
his acne keloidalis nuchae with folliculitis, (2) a higher in-
itial disability rating for a tender scar of the posterior
scalp, and (3) service connection for various other condi-
tions. Mr. Perry appealed the Board’s 2005 decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Vet-
erans Court”), which, in May 2007, affirmed the Board’s
decision. Perry v. Nicholson, No. 05-1868, 2007 WL
1467183 (Vet. App. May 16, 2007).
At least three times, Mr. Perry has requested that the
Veterans Court set aside its May 2007 decision. Perry v.
Shinseki, No. 12-1346, 2012 WL 1835932 (Vet. App.
May 21, 2012); Perry v. McDonough, No. 23-0372, 2023 WL
1778199 (Vet. App. Feb. 6, 2023); Perry v. McDonough,
No. 24-3509, 2024 WL 2883930 (Vet. App. June 10, 2024).
At issue in this appeal is Mr. Perry’s most recent attempt
of the three, Perry v. McDonough, No. 24-3509, 2024 WL
2883930 (Vet. App. June 10, 2024) (“Order”).
In his most recent challenge to the Veterans Court’s
May 2007 decision, Mr. Perry petitioned the Veterans
Court for extraordinary relief, requesting that it recall its
Case: 24-2051 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

PERRY v. COLLINS 3
mandate. In a June 2024 order, the Veterans Court denied
Mr. Perry’s request, ruling that “Mr. Perry fails to show
that disturbing our decision from 2007 is appropriate. At
best, Mr. Perry’s submission seeks to relitigate the merits
of his VA claims.” Order, at *1 (citation omitted). The Vet-
erans Court also determined that Mr. Perry’s petition pre-
sented “no coherent argument for [it] to engage with.” Id.
(citation omitted). Accordingly, the Veterans Court denied
Mr. Perry’s petition for extraordinary relief.
Mr. Perry appeals.
D ISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review a decision of the Veterans
Court is limited. We review the validity of a Veterans
Court decision “on a rule of law or of any statute or regula-
tion . . . or any interpretation thereof” that the Veterans
Court relied on in making its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a).
Additionally, this court may not, unless a constitutional
challenge is presented, “review (A) a challenge to a factual
determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as
applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(d)(2).
In the present appeal, Mr. Perry raises no legal or con-
stitutional argument concerning the Veterans Court’s June
2024 order. Mr. Perry’s opening and reply briefs generally
assert his entitlement to various disability compensation
benefits, and that the Department of Veterans Affairs un-
reasonably delayed providing said benefits. See, e.g., Ap-
pellant Informal Br. 5; Appellant Informal Reply Br. 2–4.
Even under a lenient reading, at most, Mr. Perry chal-
lenges the facts underlying the Veterans Court’s June 2024
order, or the application of law to facts. As such, Mr. Perry
fails to raise a challenge to the Veterans Court’s June 2024
order that falls within our narrow appellate jurisdiction.
38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (d)(2).
Case: 24-2051 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

PERRY v. COLLINS 4
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we dismiss Mr. Perry’s appeal
for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
Costs against Mr. Perry.
Case: 24-2051 Document: 29 Page: 4 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 4 of 4 --