Romal D. Booker v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ROMAL D. BOOKER,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1775
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 24-5379, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
Jr.
______________________
Decided: December 9, 2025
______________________
ROMAL D. BOOKER, Roselle, NJ, pro se.
REBECCA TAYLOR MITCHELL, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by ELIZABETH MARIE H OSFORD, PATRICIA M.
M C CARTHY, BRETT S HUMATE; MATTHEW ALBANESE , BRIAN
D. G RIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States De-
partment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 25-1775 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

BOOKER v. COLLINS 2
______________________
Before LOURIE , REYNA , and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM.
Romal D. Booker appeals an order of the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”),
which dismissed his petition for a writ of mandamus as
moot. Booker v. McDonough, No. 24-5379, 2024 WL
4452066, at *1–2 (Vet. App. Oct. 9, 2024) (“Decision”). Be-
cause we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
This is Mr. Booker’s fifth appeal to this court. See
Booker v. Principi, 82 F. App’x 40 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Booker
v. Nicholson, 177 F. App’x 974 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Booker
v. Shinseki, 515 F. App’x 886 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Booker
v. McDonough, No. 2021-1566, 2021 WL 3871966
(Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2021) (“2021 Decision”). Mr. Booker
served in the Air Force from 1981 to 1984. 2021 Decision
at *1. Following his service, he filed claims for knee arthri-
tis, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder
(“PTSD”), which the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”)
regional office denied. Id. at *1–2. In March 2016,
Mr. Booker requested that the VA reopen his right-knee ar-
thritis, depression, and PTSD claims, which the VA de-
clined to do. Id. at *2. In January 2019, the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) affirmed that decision, con-
cluding that Mr. Booker had not submitted the required
new and material evidence to justify reopening. Id. The
Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision denying reo-
pening the right-knee arthritis, depression, and PTSD
claims. See id. However, the Veterans Court held that
Mr. Booker’s request to reopen reasonably raised a left-
knee claim, so it remanded for further proceedings. See id.
at *1 n.1; Booker v. Wilkie, No. 19-2741, 2020 WL 5223533,
at *4 (Vet. App. Sep. 2, 2020). Mr. Booker appealed the
Case: 25-1775 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

BOOKER v. COLLINS 3
Veterans Court’s decision to us, and we dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction. 2021 Decision at *1.
In February 2022, Mr. Booker’s remanded left-knee
claim returned to the Board. Booker v. McDonough,
No. 24-1589, 2024 WL 2721566, at *1 (Vet. App. May 28,
2024). In April 2022, the Board advised Mr. Booker that
he could submit evidence and argument on the remanded
left-knee claim. Id. at *2. In May 2022, Mr. Booker filed
an “Appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals,” which in
February 2023 he re-filed and clarified was meant to seek
reconsideration of the Board’s January 2019 denial of his
request to reopen his PTSD, depression, and right-knee
claims. Id. Accordingly, as of February 2023, Mr. Booker
had two disputes pending before the Board—the February
2022 remand of the left-knee claim and the February 2023
motion for reconsideration. The Board informed
Mr. Booker that both challenges were awaiting review, and
the Board gave Mr. Booker the opportunity to submit ar-
guments in December 2023 in support of his reconsidera-
tion motion, which Mr. Booker later did. Id.
In March 2024, Mr. Booker filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus to the Veterans Court, alleging unreasonable
delay in the adjudication of the February 2023 motion for
reconsideration and the left-knee disability claim on re-
mand. Id. at *1. The Veterans Court denied the petition
in May 2024. See id. at *6.
In July 2024, Mr. Booker filed another petition for a
writ of mandamus, which is the petition that forms the ba-
sis of this appeal. See Decision at *1–2. The Veterans
Court construed Mr. Booker as arguing that the Board had
“delayed adjudicating two pending actions: a February
2023 motion for Board reconsideration of a January 2019
Board decision, and an appeal of that same January 2019
Board decision that the Court remanded.” Booker
v. McDonough, No. 24-5379 (Vet. App. Aug. 15, 2024)
Case: 25-1775 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

BOOKER v. COLLINS 4
(S. App’x 8–9);1 see Decision at *1. After the Board ordered
the VA to respond to the petition, S. App’x 8–9, the VA ex-
plained that Mr. Booker’s motion for reconsideration had
been resolved in August 2024, and the 2019 appeal was re-
manded in September 2024 after being held in abeyance
pending the resolution of the motion for reconsideration.
Decision at *1; see S. App’x 13–17. The Veterans Court
judge held that “[b]ecause VA acted on Mr. Booker’s motion
for Board reconsideration and on his appeal from the 2019
Board decision, Mr. Booker received the relief he sought”
and dismissed Mr. Booker’s petition for writ of mandamus
as moot. Decision at *1. The single judge’s decision re-
mained the opinion of the court, see Booker v. McDonough,
No. 24-5379 (Vet. App. Jan. 15, 2025) (S. App’x 4–5), and
Mr. Booker’s motion for review by the full Veterans Court
was denied, see Booker v. Collins, No. 24-5379 (Vet. App.
Mar. 11, 2025) (S. App’x 2–3). Mr. Booker timely appealed.
II. D ISCUSSION
“This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions by the Vet-
erans Court is limited.” Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d
1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We have exclusive jurisdiction
to review any challenge to the Veterans Court’s decision on
the validity of a statute or regulation, or interpretation of
a statute or regulation. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). Except with
respect to constitutional issues, 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.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). For appeals involving peti-
tions for a writ of mandamus, we have jurisdiction only if
there is a “non-frivolous legal question,” and we cannot “re-
view the factual merits of the veteran’s claim” or address
“application of veterans’ benefits law to the particular facts
1 We refer to the supplemental appendix filed with
the government’s informal response brief, ECF No. 13, as
“S. App’x” throughout this opinion.
Case: 25-1775 Document: 20 Page: 4 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

BOOKER v. COLLINS 5
of a veteran’s case.” Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154,
1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
On appeal, Mr. Booker does not raise any challenge
over which we can exercise jurisdiction. First, Mr. Booker
contends that the Veterans Court “showed no honesty and
integrity in the application of this [p]recedent and the law.”
Appellant’s Br. 22 (emphasis added); see id. at 4. We lack
jurisdiction over such challenges involving application of
law to fact. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); Beasley, 709 F.3d
at 1158. Second, while Mr. Booker has attached a list of
statutes and regulations he believes were violated, Appel-
lant’s Br. 4, none of those statutes or regulations were in-
terpreted by or relied upon by the Veterans Court in this
case, nor does this case turn on the validity or interpreta-
tion of any of those statutes or regulations. See Smith
v. Collins, 130 F.4th 1337, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2025); see
generally Decision. Third, Mr. Booker invokes, without
further explanation, the Fifth Amendment. Appellant’s Br.
1–2. An appellant’s “characterization of [a] question as
constitutional in nature does not confer upon us jurisdic-
tion that we otherwise lack.” Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over
Mr. Booker’s appeal.
III. CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Booker’s remaining argu-
ments and find that none of the arguments raises a non-
frivolous issue over which we can assert jurisdiction. For
the foregoing reasons, we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
2 We cite to the ECF page numbers.
Case: 25-1775 Document: 20 Page: 5 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 5 of 5 --