Case: 20-1460 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 06/11/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GABRIEL M. ROBLES,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2020-1460
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-4805, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
Jr.
______________________
Decided: June 11, 2020
______________________
GABRIEL M. ROBLES, Topeka, KS, pro se.
KARA WESTERCAMP, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
JOSEPH H. HUNT, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR., LOREN
MISHA PREHEIM; CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, BRIAN D.
GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 20-1460 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 06/11/2020
2 ROBLES v. WILKIE
______________________
Before PROST, Chief Judge, MAYER and LOURIE, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Gabriel M. Robles appeals from the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Vet-
erans Court”) denying his petition for extraordinary relief.
Robles v. Wilkie, No. 19-4805, 2019 WL 3806385 (Vet. App.
Aug. 14, 2019) (“Decision”). For the reasons below, we dis-
miss the appeal.
BACKGROUND
On November 14, 2016, Robles filed at the United
States Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) a claim for
compensation pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for a right wrist
injury. VA denied disability compensation for the wrist
condition. Robles filed a notice of disagreement (“NOD”) in
which he disagreed with VA’s decision and also asserted
entitlement to special monthly compensation (“SMC”)
based on housebound status or need for aid and attend-
ance. VA responded by informing Robles that his NOD was
not valid because the SMC issues had not been previously
presented to VA. Robles then filed another NOD in which
he continued to disagree with the denial of disability com-
pensation and assert entitlement to SMC. On June 8,
2019, a VA regional office issued two Statements of the
Case (“SOCs”). The first SOC continued denial of Robles’s
claim for disability compensation for his wrist injury. The
second SOC determined that Robles could not file a NOD
regarding the SMC issues because he had not filed a claim
for that benefit.
In early July 2019, Robles simultaneously filed two ap-
peals to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) as well
as a petition for extraordinary relief at the Veterans Court.
In each of his appeals to the Board, Robles wrote the
Case: 20-1460 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 06/11/2020
ROBLES v. WILKIE 3
following in lieu of a description of why he thought that VA
decided his case incorrectly:
This Veteran has filed a request to the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for
“Extraordinary Relief” (Rule 21) to bypass this ben-
efits process by the Veterans Administration.
SAppx. 28, 30.
In his petition for extraordinary relief at the Veterans
Court, Robles made numerous allegations of misconduct by
VA employees and expressed general disagreement with
the June 8, 2019 SOCs. See SAppx. 12–18. The Veterans
Court dismissed-in-part and denied-in-part. As it per-
tained to Robles’s allegations of misconduct by VA employ-
ees, the Veterans Court dismissed the petition for lack of
jurisdiction. Decision, 2019 WL 3806385, at *1 (citing 38
U.S.C. § 7252(a)). As it pertained to Robles’s claims for VA
benefits, the Veterans Court denied the petition because
Robles does not lack adequate alternative means to attain
the desired relief and therefore is not entitled to extraordi-
nary relief. Id. (citing Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S.
367, 380–81 (2004)). Robles appealed.
DISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2010). We may review a decision by the Veterans
Court concerning whether to grant a petition for extraordi-
nary relief when it raises a non-frivolous legal question.
See Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir.
2013); see also 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). “In conducting such a
review, we do not interfere with the [Veterans Court’s] role
as the final appellate arbiter of the facts underlying a vet-
eran’s claim or the application of veterans’ benefits law to
the particular facts of a veteran’s case.” Beasley, 709 F.3d
at 1158; 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
Case: 20-1460 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 06/11/2020
4 ROBLES v. WILKIE
Here, the Veterans Court applied its own jurisdictional
statute to dismiss the allegations in Robles’s petition that
do not relate to any Board decision regarding a claim for
benefits. See Decision, 2019 WL 3806385 (citing 38 U.S.C.
§ 7252(a)). And the court applied Supreme Court precedent
to deny Robles’s attempt to bypass the Board and the es-
tablished appellate procedure for his claims. See id. (citing
Cheney, 542 U.S. 367 and 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a)). Accord-
ingly, because Robles has not identified a non-frivolous le-
gal question, we have no basis to reverse the Veterans
Court’s decision.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Robles’s remaining arguments, but
we find them unpersuasive. Thus, the appeal is dismissed.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.