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N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
______________________
2023-1832
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-6701, Chief Judge Margaret C.
Bartley.
______________________
Decided: February 20, 2024
______________________
J OHN HASSAN, Center Moriches, NY, pro se.
ANNE D ELMARE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. B OYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY , J R., P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Case: 23-1832 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 02/20/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

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 denied his petition for extraordinary relief in the form
of a writ of mandamus. Hassan v. McDonough, No. 22-
6701 (Vet. App. Feb. 13, 2023), App. 1.* For the reasons set
forth below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
D ISCUSSION
I
This appeal arises out of what appears to be a long-
running dispute between Mr. Hassan and the Department
of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). The dispute came to the Veter-
ans Court on October 27, 2022, when Mr. Hassan peti-
tioned the court to compel the VA to assist with plumbing
repairs in his home. App. 1. In support of his petition, Mr.
Hassan alleged that the VA would not respond, or respond
appropriately, to his calls for help. Id. On December 2,
2022, the court ordered the Secretary to respond to Mr.
Hassan’s petition. Doing so, the Secretary stated that, be-
tween 2012 and 2016, the VA had attempted to assist Mr.
Hassan with necessary plumbing repairs so that he could
receive vocational rehabilitation and educational services
in his home, but that Mr. Hassan had declined to cooperate
in the effort. Id. at 1–2. On December 29, 2022, Mr. Has-
san submitted correspondence to the Veterans Court. In it,
he stated that the Secretary’s response was inaccurate and
that he had never refused the VA’s services. Id. at 2.
* “App.” citations are to the appendix filed with Re-
spondent-Appellee’s Informal Response Brief, ECF No. 7.
Case: 23-1832 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 02/20/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH 3
In its February 13, 2023 Order, the Veterans Court de-
termined that Mr. Hassan had failed to demonstrate enti-
tlement to a writ of mandamus. Id. Rejecting Mr. Hassan’s
claims to the contrary, the court found that the VA is will-
ing to assist Mr. Hassan with plumbing repairs in his home
but is unable to do so because Mr. Hassan has refused to
remove extreme clutter, including boxes piled to the ceiling
that prevent access. Id. The court concluded:
Ultimately, Mr. Hassan’s assertion that VA is re-
fusing to facilitate repairs and will not return his
calls is contradicted by the evidence provided by
the Secretary—and Mr. Hassan himself—demon-
strating that VA has been ready to assist Mr. Has-
san with plumbing repairs for more than a decade,
that it is currently actively engaged with Mr. Has-
san and continuing to offer services, and that it is
Mr. Hassan who is refusing to facilitate repairs and
who has declined VA’s assistance. . . . [U]nder the
circumstances present here, the Court concludes
that Mr. Hassan has not demonstrated a clear and
indisputable right to a writ or that a writ is war-
ranted because he refused VA’s assistance and pre-
vented access to the areas of his home in which
repairs are needed.
Id. at 2–3. Accordingly, the Veterans Court denied Mr.
Hassan’s petition. Id. at 3.
II
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, in-
cluding 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
Case: 23-1832 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 02/20/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH 4
appeal presents a constitutional issue. Id. § 7292(d)(2).
Although we possess “jurisdiction to review the [Veterans
Court’s] decision whether to grant a mandamus petition
that raises a non-frivolous legal question,” and although we
may determine whether the veteran “has satisfied the legal
standard for issuing the writ,” we may not “review the fac-
tual merits of the veteran’s claim.” Beasley v. Shinseki, 709
F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
We have reviewed the decision of the Veterans Court
and have considered the arguments raised by Mr. Hassan
in his appeal. Based upon the part of the Veterans Court’s
decision that we have quoted above, however, it is clear
that the court denied Mr. Hassan’s petition based solely
upon what it found to be the facts of the case. Specifically,
the court determined that, based upon those facts, Mr.
Hassan had failed to establish entitlement to a writ of man-
damus. Mr. Hassan disputes the court’s determination,
but he does so only by challenging the court’s findings of
fact. He thus presents a claim beyond our jurisdiction.
Indeed, we have consistently refused to exercise juris-
diction in appeals of denials of a writ of mandamus by the
Veterans Court when the appeals challenge only factual
determinations or the application of law to fact. See Fer-
min v. McDonough, No. 2023-1482, 2023 WL 6994232, at
*2–3 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2023) (dismissing an appeal of the
denial of a petition for writ of mandamus as it related to
challenges to factual determinations or the law as applied
to the facts); Hooper v. McDonough, No. 2022-1738, 2022
WL 4091865, at *2–3 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2022) (dismissing
an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the veteran’s
arguments “merely raise issues about factual findings and
the application of a settled (and un-challenged) legal stand-
ard to the facts of this case”); McLean v. Wilkie, 780 F.
App’x 892, 895 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (dismissing an appeal pre-
senting only issues challenging factual determinations and
the application of law to fact); Peet v. Shulkin, 686 F. App’x
914, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[E]ven if Mr. Peet addressed the
Case: 23-1832 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 02/20/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

HASSAN v. MCDONOUGH 5
Veterans Court’s findings, we could not review them. The
findings in question involve both findings of fact . . . and an
application of law to disputed facts.”); Spear v. McDonald,
586 F. App’x 591, 592 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[W]hether Mr.
Spear satisfied the requirements for a writ of mandamus is
a challenge to the Veterans Court’s application of law to
facts, over which we have no jurisdiction.”).
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: 23-1832 Document: 18 Page: 5 Filed: 02/20/2024

-- 5 of 5 --