Case: 23-1936 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 04/08/2024

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

PEARLIE M. BRUNSON, Claimant-Appellant

v.

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

2023-1936 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 21-4225, Judge Scott Laurer. ______________________

Decided: April 8, 2024 ______________________

PEARLIE M. BRUNSON, Monetta, SC, pro se.

JOSEPH ALAN PIXLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. ______________________

Before TARANTO, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges. Case: 23-1936 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 04/08/2024

2 BRUNSON v. MCDONOUGH

PER CURIAM. In August 1969, Pearlie Mae Brunson was legally married under South Carolina law to Wallace G. Brunson, Jr., a veteran with active service in the U.S. Army from June 1969 to June 1971. Appx17, 22, 75. 1 After the Brunsons’ legal divorce in July 2014 and Mr. Brunson’s death in March 2016, Appx19, 25, Ms. Brunson filed a claim for VA death benefits, stating that she was entitled to such benefits because she was Mr. Brunson’s surviving spouse, Appx80–81. The Regional Office denied that claim in August 2016, stating that because the Brunsons had le- gally divorced in July 2014 and were not married at the time of Mr. Brunson’s death, Ms. Brunson could not, under the applicable statutes and regulations, be recognized as Mr. Brunson’s surviving spouse. Appx60, 63. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) affirmed that decision, Appx7, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veter- ans Court) affirmed the Board, Brunson v. McDonough, No. 21-4225, 2023 WL 1771250 (Vet. App. Feb. 6, 2023). Ms. Brunson appeals the Veterans Court’s decision. We must dismiss because the appeal raises no issue that is within our limited jurisdiction. In particular, as relevant here, our jurisdiction is limited to “relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions,” but 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,” unless that challenge “presents a constitutional issue.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d); see also § 7292(a). Here, we have no challenge to a Veterans Court’s decision on the validity or interpreta- tion of a statute or regulation, on constitutional issues, or on any other relevant questions of law.

1 “Appx” refers to the appendix filed by the Secretary in this court with its brief as appellee. Case: 23-1936 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 04/08/2024

BRUNSON v. MCDONOUGH 3

The Veterans Court, in its decision, reviewed the Board’s application of the relevant statutes and regula- tions—those which define a “surviving spouse” for pur- poses of awarding VA death benefits—to the facts of Mrs. Brunson’s claim. See Brunson, 2023 WL 1771250, at *1–2 & nn.2 & 6 (citing 38 U.S.C. § 101(3); 38 C.F.R. § 3.50(b)). And it is that application of law to facts (which we do not have jurisdiction to review) that Ms. Brunson challenges here. See, e.g., Ms. Brunson’s Informal Brief Part 2 at 4 (“I don’t agree with what the Secretary argues that since the couple divorce[d] and didn’t remarry, [the] Secretary stated that I [don’t] qualify as a surviving spouse. I disagree with that decision.”). In her brief on appeal, Ms. Brunson con- cededly does not claim to present a question of law or a con- stitutional issue. See Ms. Brunson’s Informal Brief Part 1 at 1–2 (affirming that the Veterans Court’s decision did not “involve the validity or interpretation of a statute or regu- lation” and did not “decide constitutional issues”). Because we do not have jurisdiction to review the challenge to the Veterans Court’s decision that Ms. Brunson presents, we must dismiss her appeal. The parties shall bear their own costs. DISMISSED