Daniel Rosario Gonzalez v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DANIEL ROSARIO GONZALEZ,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2026-1022
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 24-6837, Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
Decided: June 9, 2026
______________________
D ANIEL ROSARIO G ONZALEZ , Sabana Seca, PR, pro se.
ISABELLE AUBRUN , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
ERIC P. BRUSKIN , PATRICIA M. M CCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE ;
BRIAN D. G RIFFIN , R ICHARD STEPHEN H UBER , K EN LEE , Of-
fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet-
erans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 26-1022 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

GONZALEZ v. COLLINS 2
Before D YK , M AYER , and PROST , Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
Daniel Rosario González appeals a decision of the
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”).
That court dismissed his appeal from a decision of the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying his claim for
benefits. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. González is the adult son of a deceased veteran
whose death was service connected. Mr. González seeks
dependency and indemnity compensation (“DIC”) based on
his alleged permanent incapacity for self-support.
On November 13, 2020, the Board denied Mr. Gonzá-
lez’s eligibility for DIC. To be eligible for DIC, a claimant
“must be shown to be permanently incapable of self-sup-
port by reason of mental or physical defect at the date of
attaining the age of 18 years.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.356(a). The
Board determined that Mr. González had shown the capac-
ity for self-support while an adult, including that he had
been a “primary or significant caregiver” to his father.
S. App’x 89.1 The Board concluded Mr. González’s caregiv-
ing responsibilities outweighed his evidence that he de-
pended on his father’s benefits to cover expenses. The
Veterans Court affirmed, and we dismissed Mr. González’s
appeal. Gonzalez v. McDonough, No. 2023-1347, 2024 WL
503739, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2024).
On January 26, 2024, Mr. González filed a motion with
the Board alleging clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”)
in the Board’s 2020 decision, asserting that the Board
1 Citations to “S. App’x” refer to the Supplemental
Appendix filed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in this
appeal. Dkt. No. 17.
Case: 26-1022 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

GONZALEZ v. COLLINS 3
ignored that, rather than being self-supporting, he de-
pended on more than $4,000 in monthly benefits that his
father was receiving. The Board dismissed Mr. González’s
CUE motion because the issue of his DIC eligibility had al-
ready been determined by the Veterans Court. The Veter-
ans Court dismissed Mr. González’s appeal on the same
grounds. Mr. González timely appeals.
D ISCUSSION
The Veterans Court’s determination of its own jurisdic-
tion is a legal question within our jurisdiction. Burris
v. Wilkie, 888 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Mr. González alleges that the Veterans Court improp-
erly dismissed his appeal because the Veterans Court had
not previously “ruled on or included the issues in the chal-
lenged Board decision.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 2; see Ap-
pellant’s Informal Reply Br. 5–6. The Veterans Court
concluded that “revision based on CUE is improper when a
court of competent jurisdiction above has already decided
the challenged issues.” S. App’x 4–5. We see no error in
the Veterans Court’s conclusion that Mr. González’s CUE
motion is directed to the previously affirmed determination
denying his DIC eligibility and that it therefore lacked ju-
risdiction. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1400(b); Winsett v. Principi,
341 F.3d 1329, 1331–32 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
We have considered Mr. González’s other arguments
and find them unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 26-1022 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 3 of 3 --