Case: 21-1618 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 02/18/2022

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

HENRY F. RATLIFF, Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2021-1618 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 19-6568, Judge Joseph L. Toth. ______________________

Decided: February 18, 2022 ______________________

MEGHAN GENTILE, Veterans Legal Advocacy Group, Ar- lington, VA, argued for claimant-appellant. Also repre- sented by HAROLD HAMILTON HOFFMAN, III.

SARAH E. KRAMER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre- sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.; EVAN SCOTT GRANT, Y. KEN LEE, Office of Case: 21-1618 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 02/18/2022

2 RATLIFF v. MCDONOUGH

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________

Before HUGHES, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Henry Ratliff appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Veterans Court affirmed a deci- sion of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, denying Mr. Rat- liff’s claims for disability compensation due to tinnitus. On appeal, Mr. Ratliff argues that the Veterans Court misap- plied its own precedent regarding credibility determina- tions and erred in making its harmless error determination. Because Mr. Ratliff’s arguments both in- volve an application of law to fact, they are beyond our ju- risdiction to consider. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accord- ingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED No costs.