Filed: Nov. 04, 2020
Latest Update: Nov. 05, 2020
Case: 20-1879 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 11/04/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JESUS S. JUAREZ,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2020-1879
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-2386, Judge William S. Green-
berg.
______________________
Decided: November 4, 2020
______________________
JESUS S. JUAREZ, San Antonio, TX, pro se.
RAFIQUE OMAR ANDERSON, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by JEFFREY B. CLARK, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD,
ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN,
JONATHAN KRISCH, Office of General Counsel, United
States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 20-1879 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 11/04/2020
2 JUAREZ v. WILKIE
______________________
Before LOURIE, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Jesus S. Juarez appeals a decision from the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans
Court) affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board)
decision that dismissed his motion for revision based on
clear and unmistakable error (CUE) as insufficiently pled.
Because we lack jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s
decision, we dismiss this appeal.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Juarez served on active duty in the U.S. Army from
August 1991 to April 1995. J.A. 5. On September 9, 1993,
Mr. Juarez sustained severe injuries as a result of a motor-
cycle accident. J.A. 55. In conjunction with his discharge,
Mr. Juarez filed a benefits claim for service connection for
residuals of the accident, including left-lower extremity
amputation with disarticulation at the hip, right hydro-
nephrosis with renal insufficiency and urethral injury, rec-
tal laceration requiring colostomy, and moderate dementia.
J.A. 52. The regional office (RO) denied the claim in Octo-
ber 1995. Id. Instead of appealing the RO’s decision,
Mr. Juarez filed another claim for benefits in January
1996. J.A. 5. In response, the RO informed Mr. Juarez
that reopening his claim required new and material evi-
dence. J.A. 50. Because Mr. Juarez did not respond to this
request, the RO denied his claim in June 1996. J.A. 48.
Mr. Juarez did not appeal.
In February 2013, Mr. Juarez submitted a statement
asserting a CUE claim. J.A. 44. He also submitted benefits
claims for left leg amputation, hemipelvectomy, hip disar-
ticulation, and spinal scoliosis. J.A. 5–6. In a January
2015 rating decision, the RO denied both the CUE motion
and the benefits claims. Id. at 6. Mr. Juarez then timely
Case: 20-1879 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 11/04/2020
JUAREZ v. WILKIE 3
filed a notice of disagreement and appealed to the Board.
J.A. 29–36.
In February 2019, the Board dismissed Mr. Juarez’s
CUE motion as insufficiently pled, finding that he had not
clearly and specifically identified the rating decision he
was challenging or the error of law or fact that would have
manifestly changed the outcome. J.A. 13–14. The Board
also remanded multiple matters to the RO to determine if
Mr. Juarez’s injuries were the result of an alcohol abuse
disorder caused by a service-connected psychiatric disor-
der. Id. at 15–18. Mr. Juarez appealed the dismissal of the
CUE motion to the Veterans Court. On March 27, 2020,
the Veterans Court affirmed the decision of the Board.
Juarez v. Wilkie, No. 19-2386,
2020 WL 1482460, (Vet. App.
Mar. 27, 2020). Mr. Juarez then timely appealed to this
court.
DISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review a decision of the Veterans
Court is limited by statute. Gazelle v. Shulkin, 868 F.3d
1006, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We have “exclusive jurisdic-
tion to review and decide any challenge to the validity of
any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof
brought under this section, and to interpret constitutional
and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and nec-
essary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). Absent a consti-
tutional issue, the court may not review “a challenge to a
factual determination, or [] a challenge to a law or regula-
tion as applied to the facts of a particular case.”
38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Interpretation of the contents of a
claim for benefits is a factual issue over which we do not
have jurisdiction. Ellington v. Peake,
541 F.3d 1364, 1371
(Fed. Cir. 2008).
Here, Mr. Juarez does not challenge the validity of any
statute or regulation nor identify any incorrect legal inter-
pretation in the Veterans Court’s opinion. He also does not
identify any arguable violations of his constitutional rights.
Case: 20-1879 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 11/04/2020
4 JUAREZ v. WILKIE
Instead, Mr. Juarez argues that the Veterans Court erro-
neously determined that his CUE motion was insufficiently
pled—challenging the factual determinations made by the
Veterans Court as well as the Veterans Court’s application
of the CUE pleading requirements to his case.
We lack jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s
finding that Mr. Juarez’s CUE motion was insufficiently
pled. The question of whether Mr. Juarez sufficiently and
clearly raised a CUE claim would require us to review and
interpret the contents of his claim, a factual determination
not within our jurisdiction per § 7292(d)(2). See Kernea v.
Shinseki, 724 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (concluding
that we lack jurisdiction to review the dismissal of a CUE
claim for failure to identify a specific error or a rating deci-
sion the appellant alleges contains CUE because it would
“require us to review and interpret the contents of her
claim,” a factual issue); see also Andrews v. Nicholson,
421
F.3d 1278, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Quite simply, the [De-
partment of Veterans Affairs’] duty to sympathetically read
a veteran’s pro se CUE motion to discern all potential
claims is antecedent to a determination of whether a CUE
claim has been pled with specificity.”).
Additionally, Mr. Juarez contends that the Veterans
Court’s holding was prejudicial and misquoted a December
1993 service department memorandum. Appellant’s Br. at
3–4. Despite Mr. Juarez’s characterization of these issues
as constitutional, they are constitutional in name only, and
thus, beyond our jurisdiction. See Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d
1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[Appellant’s] characterization
of [the] question as constitutional in nature does not confer
upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack.”).
Mr. Juarez further contends that the Veterans Court
erred by denying him a presumption of a service connec-
tion. Appellant’s Br. at 5. Given that the Veterans Court
never addressed this particular matter, we interpret
Mr. Juarez’s contentions to be directed to the RO instead
Case: 20-1879 Document: 18 Page: 5 Filed: 11/04/2020
JUAREZ v. WILKIE 5
of the Veterans Court. See Durr v. Nicholson, 400 F.3d
1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that pro se pleadings
should be liberally construed). Whether the RO denied
Mr. Juarez the presumption of service connection is not the
subject of this appeal. Therefore, the statutes and regula-
tions governing the presumption of service connection were
not relied upon or interpreted by the Veterans Court in
making its decision. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to
review this issue. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a).
Mr. Juarez also makes a number of other arguments:
(1) the Veterans Court did not explain how his February
2013 CUE motion failed to collaterally attack a final June
1996 adverse decision by the RO; (2) the Veterans Court
failed to satisfy or ignored the requirements of § 5109A(a)
and (b); and (3) the Veterans Court failed to note both a
police accident report and his honorable discharge. Appel-
lant’s Br. at 2–3. As these arguments relate to factual dis-
putes or applications of law to fact, we lack jurisdiction to
review them. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Juarez’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive or beyond our jurisdiction to
review. Accordingly, the appeal from the final judgment of
the Veterans Court is dismissed.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
