"Absent a constitutional issue, however, we lack the jurisdiction to '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.'" Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)). II.
This Court's jurisdiction to review Veterans Court decisions is limited by statute. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Absent a constitutional issue, 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." 38
Our jurisdiction to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, as set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 7292, is limited. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction to review "the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the decision."
"This court's jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans Court is limited." Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Absent a constitutional issue, 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."
"This court's jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans Court is limited." Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Absent a constitutional issue, 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 jurisdiction "to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision." Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c)). "Absent a constitutional issue, however, we lack the jurisdiction to '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 jurisdiction "to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision." Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c)). "Absent a constitutional issue, however, we lack the jurisdiction to '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 limited jurisdiction to review decisions of the CAVC. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). This court has "exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision."
We have jurisdiction "to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision." Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c)). "Absent a constitutional issue, however, we lack the jurisdiction to '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 jurisdiction "to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision." Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c)). "Absent a constitutional issue, however, we lack the jurisdiction to '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.'"