Case: 22-1214 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MICHAEL A. SALAS,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-1214
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-7304, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: June 9, 2022
______________________
MICHAEL A. SALAS, San Antonio, TX, pro se.
KELLY GEDDES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, LOREN MISHA
PREHEIM; AMANDA BLACKMON, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Office of
General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 22-1214 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2022
2 SALAS v. MCDONOUGH
Before NEWMAN, PROST, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Michael A. Salas appeals a judgment of the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming
a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that
denied him an increased rating for his ankle disability. As
explained below, Mr. Salas raises no issues within our ju-
risdiction. We therefore dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Salas served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from
July 1977 to December 1980. U.S. Appx. 12. 1 In 2011, the
Board granted Mr. Salas service connection for a right-an-
kle disability, and the Department of Veterans Affairs
(“VA”) assigned him a 10% disability rating in 2012, with
an effective date of January 12, 2006. U.S. Appx. 53–54.
In 2014, after Mr. Salas filed a notice of disagreement, the
VA increased this disability rating to 20%, the maximum
rating available under the applicable diagnostic code.
U.S. Appx. 48. Mr. Salas then appealed to the Board,
which remanded in 2018 for additional development.
U.S. Appx. 43–47. On remand, the VA denied entitlement
to an increased rating. U.S. Appx. 24. The Board affirmed
the VA, U.S. Appx. 13–16, and, in a single-judge decision,
the Veterans Court affirmed the Board, U.S. Appx. 7–11.
When Mr. Salas moved for reconsideration and, alterna-
tively, for a decision by a three-judge panel, the Veterans
Court ordered supplemental briefing on the implications of
one of its intervening decisions, 2 granted Mr. Salas’s mo-
tion for a panel decision, and entered judgment by adopting
1 “U.S. Appx.” refers to the appendix that the govern-
ment submitted in this appeal.
2 Chavis v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 1 (2021).
Case: 22-1214 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2022
SALAS v. MCDONOUGH 3
the prior single-judge decision. U.S. Appx. 2. Mr. Salas
appeals. For the below reasons, we lack jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction over Veterans Court decisions is lim-
ited. We have “exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide
any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or
any interpretation thereof . . . , and to interpret constitu-
tional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and
necessary to a [Veterans Court] decision.” 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(c). And “except to the extent that an appeal . . . pre-
sents a constitutional issue,” we “may not review (A) a chal-
lenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law
or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.”
Id. § 7292(d)(2). Here, Mr. Salas raises no issues within
our jurisdiction.
In contending that the Veterans Court’s decision in-
volved the validity or interpretation of a statute or regula-
tion, Mr. Salas cites 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4), which requires
the Veterans Court, “in the case of a finding of material fact
adverse to the claimant,” to “hold unlawful and set aside or
reverse such finding if the finding is clearly erroneous.”
The Veterans Court’s decision, however, did not concern
the validity or interpretation of this clear-error standard of
review. Mr. Salas emphasizes that, under this standard of
review, the Veterans Court “is not permitted” to “substitute
its judgment” for the Board’s judgment “on issues of mate-
rial fact” and that it cannot modify the Board’s fact findings
“if there is a plausible basis in the record for the [Board’s]
factual determination.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 1 (citing
Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990) (discussing
“clearly erroneous” standard)); see also Appellant’s Infor-
mal Reply Br. 3. But the Veterans Court affirmed the
Board, so this case doesn’t present an instance of the Vet-
erans Court improperly substituting its judgment for that
of the Board. Regardless, we lack jurisdiction to review the
Case: 22-1214 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 06/09/2022
4 SALAS v. MCDONOUGH
Veterans Court’s application of the clear-error standard to
the facts of a particular case.
Mr. Salas also contends that the Veterans Court de-
cided constitutional issues. Appellant’s Informal Br. 2. In
support, he alleges that the Veterans Court “[d]enied an
initial en banc review for a case involving an ‘unrepre-
sented appellant.’” Appellant’s Informal Br. 15. Mr. Salas
did at one point file a request for “en banc” review of the
panel’s decision. U.S. Appx. 58–64. But the Veterans
Court denied that request as noncompliant. U.S. Appx. 66.
This is not a constitutional issue or an issue otherwise
within our jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Salas’s remaining arguments
but find them unpersuasive. Because Mr. Salas raises no
issues within our limited jurisdiction, we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Salas v. McDonough
Combined Opinion