Opinion
2016-1539
04-10-2017
IGNACIO E. CASTILLO, JR., Claimant-Appellant v. DAVID J. SHULKIN, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee
KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Law Offices of Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant. MOLLIE LENORE FINNAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., MARTIN F. HOCKEY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 14-1498, Judge Robert N. Davis. KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Law Offices of Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant. MOLLIE LENORE FINNAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., MARTIN F. HOCKEY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, Office of General Counsel, Unit- ed States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. Before LOURIE, MOORE, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Ignacio E. Castillo, Jr. ("Castillo") appeals from a final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("Veterans Court") affirming the Board of Veterans' Appeals' ("the Board") decision granting him a 30% initial disability rating. See Ignacia E. Castillo, Jr. v. Robert A. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, No. 14-1498, 2015 WL 6605543 (Vet. App. Oct. 30, 2015).
The scope of our review in an appeal from the Veterans Court is limited. We may review the validity of a decision with respect to a rule of a law or interpretation of a statute or regulation that was relied upon by the Veterans Court in making its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) (2002). Except with respect to constitutional issues, this Court "may not 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." Id. at § 7292(d)(2).
Despite Castillo's attempts to frame his arguments as legal challenges, his appeal, at its core, seeks to impermissibly challenge the Board's application of law to the facts of his case. Thus, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.