Israel Cantu v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ISRAEL CANTU,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2026-1301
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 25-5051, Chief Judge Michael P.
Allen, Judge Margaret C. Bartley, Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
Decided: June 9, 2026
______________________
I SRAEL CANTU, San Antonio, TX, pro se.
N ELSON K UAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by ERIC
P. BRUSKIN, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Before L OURIE, SCHALL , and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
Case: 26-1301 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

CANTU v. COLLINS 2
P ER CURIAM .
Israel Cantu appeals from an order of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans
Court”) dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus as
moot. Cantu v. Collins, 2025 WL 2610186, at *1–2 (Vet.
App. Sept. 10, 2025) (“Decision”). Because we lack jurisdic-
tion over the appeal, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Cantu is a veteran who served in the United States
Army from 2004 to 2009. S.A. 14.1 In March 2024, the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) issued a decision
denying Cantu an effective date before November 21, 2015
for awards of service connection for PTSD, left lower ex-
tremity radiculopathy, and a left long finger painful scar.
S.A. 7–13 . Cantu appealed to the Veterans Court, which
vacated the Board’s decision and remanded for further ad-
judication. S.A. 14–22.
As of June 2025, the Board had not adjudicated his
claims for an effective date before November 21, 2015. See
S.A. 1. Cantu accordingly filed a petition for extraordinary
relief seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Board to
adjudicate the claims. See S.A. 1–2. In July 2025, the
Board issued a decision denying an earlier effective date
for the PTSD and left lower extremity radiculopathy claims
and granting an earlier effective date for the left long finger
painful scar claim. S.A. 23–37. Because the Board had “is-
sued a decision” on the claims Cantu sought adjudication
of in his petition, the Veterans Court dismissed the petition
as moot. S.A. 1–2.
Cantu timely appealed.
1 “S.A” refers to the Supplemental Appendix at-
tached to the Respondent’s Informal Brief.
Case: 26-1301 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

CANTU v. COLLINS 3
D ISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction over decisions from the Veterans
Corut is limited by statute. 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 or interpretation of a statute or regulation. 38
U.S.C. § 7292(c). Except with respect to constitutional is-
sues, we “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual deter-
mination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as
applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2).
For appeals involving petitions for a writ of mandamus, we
have jurisdiction only if there is a “non-frivolous legal ques-
tion,” and we cannot “review the factual merits of the vet-
eran’s claim” or address “application of veterans’ benefits
law to the particular facts of a veteran’s case.” Beasley v.
Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Cantu first argues that the Veterans Court erred in
denying his petition as moot. Informal Open. Br. 1–2, In-
formal Reply Br. 4–5. We disagree. The relief sought in
his petition—a decision from the Board on the effective
date claims—was given to him in July 2025. S.A. 23–37.
The petition is therefore “no longer live,” rendering it moot.
L.A. County v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979) (cleaned up
and citation omitted).
Second, while Cantu lists numerous statutes and regu-
lations he believes were violated, Informal Open. Br. 1–2,
none of those statutes or regulations were interpreted by
or relied upon by the Veterans Court in denying his peti-
tion, nor does this case turn on the validity or interpreta-
tion of any of those statutes or regulations. See generally
Decision. That argument does not create jurisdiction for
this court over this appeal. See Smith v. Collins, 130 F.4th
1337, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“For us to address a legal
question presented to us on appeal[,] . . . [t]he Veterans
Court must have made a determination on the legal issue
presented to us by the appellant, either making a decision
Case: 26-1301 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

CANTU v. COLLINS 4
on a rule of law or relying on a challenged statute or regu-
lation or its interpretation.”) (cleaned up); see 38 U.S.C. §
7292(a), (c).
To the extent that Cantu seeks to raise arguments con-
cerning the merits of the Board’s July 2025 decision, see
Informal Reply Br. 1–16, a petition for a writ of mandamus
“cannot be used as [a] substitute” for the ordinary appeal
process. Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S.
379, 383 (1953)). Only the Veterans Court’s dismissal of
Cantu’s petition is on appeal here.
Thus, because Cantu does not raise a non-frivolous le-
gal question based on the Veterans Court’s decision to deny
his petition for mandamus, we lack jurisdiction over this
appeal.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Cantu’s remaining arguments and
determine that none raise a non-frivolous legal question
over which we can assert jurisdiction. For the foregoing
reasons, we dismiss.
DISMISSED
Case: 26-1301 Document: 11 Page: 4 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 4 of 4 --