Gonzalez v. Collins

Case: 26-1022 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________

DANIEL ROSARIO GONZALEZ,

Claimant-Appellant v.

DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2026-1022 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 24-6837, Judge Scott Laurer.

______________________ Decided: June 9, 2026 ______________________

DANIEL ROSARIO GONZALEZ, Sabana Seca, PR, pro se. ISABELLE AUBRUN, Commercial Litigation Branch,

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, RICHARD STEPHEN HUBER, KEN LEE, Of- fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet- erans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________

Case: 26-1022 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2026 2 GONZALEZ v. COLLINS

Before DYK, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

Daniel Rosario González appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). That court dismissed his appeal from a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying his claim for benefits. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. González is the adult son of a deceased veteran whose death was service connected. Mr. González seeks dependency and indemnity compensation (“DIC”) based on his alleged permanent incapacity for self-support.

On November 13, 2020, the Board denied Mr. Gonzá- lez’s eligibility for DIC. To be eligible for DIC, a claimant “must be shown to be permanently incapable of self-sup- port by reason of mental or physical defect at the date of attaining the age of 18 years.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.356(a). The Board determined that Mr. González had shown the capac- ity for self-support while an adult, including that he had been a “primary or significant caregiver” to his father. S. App’x 89. 1 The Board concluded Mr. González’s caregiv- ing responsibilities outweighed his evidence that he de- pended on his father’s benefits to cover expenses. The Veterans Court affirmed, and we dismissed Mr. González’s appeal. Gonzalez v. McDonough, No. 2023-1347, 2024 WL 503739, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2024).

On January 26, 2024, Mr. González filed a motion with the Board alleging clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) in the Board’s 2020 decision, asserting that the Board Case: 26-1022 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2026 GONZALEZ v. COLLINS 3 ignored that, rather than being self-supporting, he de- pended on more than $4,000 in monthly benefits that his father was receiving. The Board dismissed Mr. González’s CUE motion because the issue of his DIC eligibility had al- ready been determined by the Veterans Court. The Veter- ans Court dismissed Mr. González’s appeal on the same grounds. Mr. González timely appeals.

DISCUSSION

The Veterans Court’s determination of its own jurisdic- tion is a legal question within our jurisdiction. Burris v. Wilkie, 888 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Mr. González alleges that the Veterans Court improp- erly dismissed his appeal because the Veterans Court had not previously “ruled on or included the issues in the chal- lenged Board decision.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 2; see Ap- pellant’s Informal Reply Br. 5–6. The Veterans Court concluded that “revision based on CUE is improper when a court of competent jurisdiction above has already decided the challenged issues.” S. App’x 4–5. We see no error in the Veterans Court’s conclusion that Mr. González’s CUE motion is directed to the previously affirmed determination denying his DIC eligibility and that it therefore lacked ju- risdiction. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1400(b); Winsett v. Principi, 341 F.3d 1329, 1331–32 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

We have considered Mr. González’s other arguments and find them unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED COSTS

No costs.