Moreno v. Collins

Case: 26-1607 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 09/15/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ JERONIMO MORENO, Claimant-Appellant v. DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________ 2026-1607 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 25-10425, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch. ______________________ Decided: September 15, 2026 ______________________ JERONIMO MORENO, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

NATALEE A. ALLENBAUGH, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre- sented by ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE; KATHRYN L. BLEVINS, Y. KEN LEE, Office of Gen- eral Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Af- fairs, Washington, DC.

Case: 26-1607 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 09/15/2026

2 MORENO v. COLLINS

______________________ Before DYK, PROST, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jeronimo Moreno appeals an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We affirm.

BACKGROUND Mr. Moreno served honorably in the United States Ma- rine Corps from July 1977 to July 1981. In February 2025, the regional office (“RO”) granted service connection for disability benefits related to right-hand, right-knee, and left-knee conditions after a prior remand from the Veterans Court and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”).

Mr. Moreno then challenged the disability rating and effec- tive date granted for each condition, alleging clear and un- mistakable error in the February 2025 decision. On October 2, 2025, the RO issued a decision finding no clear and unmistakable error in its prior decision.

Generally, a veteran may seek review of an RO decision by filing a supplemental claim, requesting higher-level re- view, or appealing to the Board. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500.

However, instead of pursuing one of these pathways, Mr. Moreno sent a letter to the Board, asserting that the RO decision was erroneous and failed to comply with the Board’s prior remand. This was not sufficient to file an ap- peal with the Board, which requires filing a Notice of Dis- agreement. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(a) (“A Notice of Disagreement must be properly completed on a form pre- scribed by the Secretary.”). On December 12, 2025, the De- partment of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) sent Mr. Moreno a letter stating that he had no pending claims or appeals and supplying him with information on how to seek review of the October RO decision. S. App’x 8 (“If you would like to file a decision review request option . . . you may review the Case: 26-1607 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 09/15/2026

MORENO v. COLLINS 3 options on VA Form 20-0998, Your Right to Seek Review of Our Decision.”) 1 On December 22, 2025, Mr. Moreno petitioned the Vet- erans Court for a writ of mandamus to set aside the Octo- ber RO decision. The Veterans Court denied the petition, concluding that granting the petition was inappropriate be- cause Mr. Moreno “does not explain how he lacks adequate alternative means to obtain review of the October 2025 de- cision.” S. App’x 5. Mr. Moreno appeals.

DISCUSSION “This court has jurisdiction to review the [Veterans Court]’s decision whether to grant a mandamus petition that raises a non-frivolous legal question.” Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

A writ of mandamus may only issue when (1) no other adequate means exist to attain the relief the party desires; (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and in- disputable; and (3) the writ is appropriate under the cir- cumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). The Veterans Court determined that man- damus was not available here because other adequate means existed for Mr. Moreno to seek review of the RO de- cision, including requesting higher-level review or filing an appeal with the Board to challenge the October 2025 RO decision. We agree that mandamus was unavailable.

Mr. Moreno’s petition requested review of an RO decision that could have been reviewed through other established channels. We note that the appellant still has time to pur- sue review of the October decision because he has one year to challenge the RO decision. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(c).

1 Citations to “S. App’x” refer to the supplemental appendix filed by the government with its informal re- sponse brief. Dkt. No. 6.

Case: 26-1607 Document: 15 Page: 4 Filed: 09/15/2026

4 MORENO v. COLLINS

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

AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.