Kevin Lenard Perry v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
KEVIN LENARD PERRY,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1880
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 25-3710, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
Jr.
______________________
Decided: December 8, 2025
______________________
K EVIN L ENARD P ERRY , El Centro, CA, pro se.
P ATRICK ANGULO, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
G EOFFREY M. L ONG , P ATRICIA M. MCC ARTHY , BRETT
SHUMATE; CARLING K AY BENNETT , D EREK S CADDEN, Office
of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 25-1880 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 12/08/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

PERRY v. COLLINS 2
______________________
Before L OURIE, P ROST , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Kevin L. Perry appeals the denial of his petition for a
writ of mandamus by the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims (“Veterans Court”). For the reasons below, we af-
firm in part and dismiss in part.
BACKGROUND
Much of the factual and procedural background rele-
vant to this opinion appears in our 2025 decision, Perry v.
Collins, No. 24-2051, 2025 WL 1077529 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10,
2025). We assume the parties’ familiarity with this back-
ground and will not repeat it here.
Mr. Perry has requested that the Veterans Court set
aside its May 2007 decision several times by filing petitions
for mandamus like the one at issue in this appeal. See, e.g.,
Perry v. Shinseki, No. 12-1346, 2012 WL 1835932 (Vet.
App. May 21, 2012) (denying writ); Perry v. McDonough,
No. 23-0372, 2023 WL 1778199 (Vet. App. Feb. 6, 2023)
(same); Perry v. McDonough, No. 24-3509, 2024 WL
2883930 (Vet. App. June 10, 2024) (same). In our 2025 de-
cision, Mr. Perry appealed the Veterans Court’s denial of
his petition for a writ. We dismissed that appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. Perry, 2025 WL 1077529, at *1.
About a month after our 2025 decision, Mr. Perry again
petitioned for the extraordinary relief of mandamus at the
Veterans Court. The court denied the writ. It held that
Mr. Perry “has provided no evidence of a currently pending
[Veterans Affairs (“VA”)] claim,” and “there is nothing for
us to compel or facilitate through mandamus.” Perry v.
Collins, No. 25-3710, 2025 WL 1466240, at *1 (Vet. App.
May 22, 2025) (“Decision”). The court also warned
Mr. Perry that given his “repetitive and voluminous at-
tempts to improperly use the writ process to relitigate the
Case: 25-1880 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 12/08/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

PERRY v. COLLINS 3
merits of long-finished claims,” “before Mr. Perry tries to
file any new petition, he must first file a motion with the
[Veterans Court] seeking permission to file the petition.”
Id. That motion must include: (1) an explanation why the
petition “is not repetitive and frivolous”; (2) a description of
the petition “he seeks to file and the relief sought”; (3) an
identification of the “pending claim or VA process within
[the Veterans Court’s] jurisdiction [to which] his petition
relates”; and (4) a payment of a $50 filing fee. Id. The mo-
tion must also not exceed four pages total, including any
attachments or appendices. Any motion that meets these
requirements “will be referred to a [j]udge for a decision on
whether permission to file will be granted or denied.” Id.
Mr. Perry timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
38 U.S.C. § 7292.
D ISCUSSION
This court has limited jurisdiction to review Veterans
Court decisions. We “may not review (A) a challenge to a
factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regu-
lation as applied to the facts of a particular case.”
38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). But we may “review and decide any
challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any
interpretation thereof” and “interpret constitutional and
statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary
to a decision.” Id. § 7292(c).
As to Mr. Perry’s challenge to the Veterans Court’s de-
nial of his mandamus petition, Mr. Perry raises no legal or
constitutional arguments. To the extent Mr. Perry raises
arguments challenging factual determinations or that re-
quire the application of law to fact, we also do not have ju-
risdiction over those arguments. Id. § 7292(d)(2). We
therefore dismiss Mr. Perry’s appeal on the writ issue for
lack of jurisdiction.
Mr. Perry also requests that we “void” “all the orders”
issued by the Veterans Court. Appellant’s Informal Br. 22;
Case: 25-1880 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 12/08/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

PERRY v. COLLINS 4
see also Informal Reply Br. 8–9. Mr. Perry appears to chal-
lenge the Veterans Court’s legal authority to require him
to first file a motion before filing any new petitions. Deci-
sion, 2025 WL 1466240, at *1. Under these circumstances,
we see no reason to disturb the Veterans Court’s determi-
nation and thus affirm the court’s pre-filing order.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Perry’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm in part and dismiss in part.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND DISMISSED-IN-PART
COSTS
Costs to Appellee.
Case: 25-1880 Document: 17 Page: 4 Filed: 12/08/2025

-- 4 of 4 --