Case: 20-1486 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 06/03/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CHERRIE A. HOLLIE,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2020-1486
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-1265, Chief Judge Margaret C.
Bartley.
______________________
Decided: June 3, 2020
______________________
CHERRIE A. HOLLIE, Oakland, CA, pro se.
DAVID PEHLKE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
JOSEPH H. HUNT, CLAUDIA BURKE, ROBERT EDWARD
KIRSCHMAN, JR.
______________________
Case: 20-1486 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 06/03/2020
2 HOLLIE v. WILKIE
Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION
Cherrie A. Hollie appeals the November 27, 2019 deci-
sion of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims (“Veterans Court”) in Hollie v. Wilkie, No. 19-1265,
2019 WL 6334692 (Vet. App. Nov. 27, 2019). In that deci-
sion, the Veterans Court affirmed the December 27, 2018
decision of the Board of Veterans Appeals (“Board”) that
denied Ms. Hollie recognition as the surviving spouse of
veteran Charlie Hollie for purposes of entitlement to survi-
vor benefits. Suppl. App. 8. For the reasons stated below,
we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
I.
Mr. Hollie served on active duty in the U.S. Marine
Corps from June of 1960 to June of 1964. He served in the
U.S. Navy from August of 1964 to August of 1968. The Hol-
lies married in July of 1970 and divorced in April of 1976.
Mr. Hollie died in March of 2009. His death certificate
listed his marital status as divorced. Hollie, 2019 WL
6334692 at *1.
In February of 2015, Ms. Hollie filed a claim for survi-
vor benefits. A VA regional office (“RO”) in due course de-
nied the claim. The RO stated that Ms. Hollie could not
qualify for benefits as a surviving spouse because, at the
time of Mr. Hollie’s death, she and Mr. Hollie were di-
vorced. Id.
Following the RO’s decision, Ms. Hollie appealed to the
Board. As noted, in its December 27, 2019 decision, the
Board denied Ms. Hollie’s claim for survivor benefits. The
Board did so on the ground that Ms. Hollie did not qualify
as a “surviving spouse” under 38 C.F.R. § 3.50(b). That reg-
ulation defines a “surviving spouse” for purposes of death
Case: 20-1486 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 06/03/2020
HOLLIE v. WILKIE 3
benefits as “the spouse of the veteran at the time of the vet-
eran’s death.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.50(b). Since Ms. Hollie was
divorced from Mr. Hollie at the time of his death, she could
not satisfy the regulation’s requirement. Suppl. App. 9–11.
As noted, the Veterans Court affirmed the decision of
the Board. The court stated that, “[i]n this case, the law is
dispositive and requires that a person be married to a vet-
eran at the time of the veteran’s death to qualify as a sur-
viving spouse for the purposes of [dependency and
indemnity compensation (“DIC”)] and [a] survivor death
pension.” Hollie, 2019 WL 6334692 at *3. The court noted
Ms. Hollie’s argument that she met the requirements for
benefits under 38 C.F.R. § 3.54 because she was married to
Mr. Hollie for over a year and they had a child during their
marriage. Id. at *2. As the court explained, however,
§ 3.54 applies only to those who qualify as a “surviving
spouse.” Id. at **2, 4. The court concluded: “[T]he Board
did not clearly err and provided adequate reasons or bases
for its determination that Ms. Hollie does not qualify as a
surviving spouse for DIC and survivor death pension pur-
poses.” Id. at *4. Following the Veterans Court’s decision,
Ms. Hollie appealed to us.
II.
Our ability to review a decision of the Veterans Court
is limited. Scott v. Wilkie, 920 F.3d 1375, 1377–78 (Fed.
Cir. 2019). “Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we may re-
view the validity of a Veterans Court’s decision on ‘a rule
of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpreta-
tion thereof ’ that the Veterans Court relied on in making
its decision.” Id. (omission in original). “Unless the case
presents 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.’” Id. (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)).
Case: 20-1486 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 06/03/2020
4 HOLLIE v. WILKIE
III.
As seen, the Board determined that Ms. Hollie is not
entitled to benefits because she does not qualify as a “sur-
viving spouse” under 38 C.F.R. § 3.50(b). On appeal, Ms.
Hollie does not challenge the validity of § 3.50(b). Neither
does she argue that, in affirming the Board’s decision, the
Veterans Court erred in interpreting the regulation, and
she does not raise a constitutional issue. Rather, as she did
before both the Board and the Veterans Court, she main-
tains her argument for benefits under 38 C.F.R. § 3.54 and
advances various equitable arguments as to why she
should receive survivor benefits. While we are sympathetic
to Ms. Hollie’s circumstances, we are unable to consider her
arguments. That is because they all, in one way or another,
challenge the Veterans Court’s application of the law, in
this case 38 C.F.R. § 3.50(b), to the facts of her case. As
noted above, the statute that gives us the power to review
decisions of the Veterans Court bars us from considering
the kinds of arguments that Ms. Hollie is making. For this
reason, the only course available to us is to dismiss Ms.
Hollie’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Hollie’s appeal is dis-
missed for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.