See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The Veterans Court rejected Mrs. Dover's motion because it believed that its remand was for dismissal and because our precedent in Halpern v. Principi, 384 F.3d 1297 (Fed.Cir.2004) prevents an appellant who wins a remand for dismissal from claiming “prevailing party” status. Mrs. Dover appeals to this court.

"'[T]he law of the case doctrine is not applicable to issues neither presented nor decided in a former proceeding in the case.'" Halpern v. Principi, 384 F.3d 1297, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Stearns v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 737 F.2d 1565, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).

“Our jurisdiction in veterans cases is limited by statute.” Halpern v. Principi, 384 F.3d 1297, 1306 (Fed.Cir.2004). In particular, 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) provides that, “Except to the extent that an appeal under this chapter presents a constitutional issue, the Court of Appeals 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.”

On review of a decision of the Veterans Court, this court "shall decide all relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions." 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1); Halpern v. Principi, 384 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, we "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."

"`[T]he law of the case doctrine is not applicable to issues neither presented nor decided in a former proceeding in the case.'" Halpern v. Principi, 384 F.3d 1297, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Stearns v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 737 F.2d 1565, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1984)); Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2006). III. Analysis

" '[W]here adoption of a particular legal standard dictates the outcome of a case based on undisputed facts, we may address that issue as a question of law.' " Kelly v. Nicholson, 463 F.3d 1349, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Halpern v. Principi, 384 F.3d 1297, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see Sellers v. Wilkie, 965 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Robinson v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 976, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Groves v. Peake, 524 F.3d 1306, 1309-10 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Secretary has not shown that the facts that are material under the correct standard are in dispute, and on those facts, the post-Act version of the fee statute applies.

Section 7292(d)(2)(B) would therefore not appear to create a jurisdictional bar in this case. See Thompson v. Shinseki, 682 F.3d 1377, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ; Halpern v. Principi , 384 F.3d 1297, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To the extent that there is a factual dispute regarding the legal status of the 2010 memorandum, resolution of that issue would entail an application of law to fact and thus would fall outside our jurisdiction in light of section 7292(d)(2)(B).

We have jurisdiction to "decide all relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions." 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1); see also Halpern v. Principi, 384 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Absent a constitutional issue, however, we "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."

"We have recognized, however, that where adoption of a particular legal standard dictates the outcome of a case based on undisputed facts, we may address that issue as a question of law." Dixon , 741 F.3d at 1373 (quoting Halpern v. Principi , 384 F.3d 1297, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ); accord Conley v. Peake , 543 F.3d 1301, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The following must be demonstrated to establish CUE: (1) "Either the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicator or the statutory or regulatory provisions extant at the time were incorrectly applied"; (2) "The error must be ‘undebatable’ and the sort ‘which, had it not been made, would have manifestly changed the outcome at the time it was made’ "; and (3) "A determination that there was CUE must be based on the record and the law that existed at the time of the prior adjudication in question."

We "shall decide all relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions." 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1); see also id. § 7292(a); Halpern v. Principi, 384 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Absent a constitutional issue, however, we "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."