Case: 23-1945 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2024
`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`CYNTHIA A. TORREZ,
`Claimant-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
`VETERANS AFFAIRS,
`Respondent-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2023-1945
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
`Veterans Claims in No. 22-4907, Judge Scott Laurer.
`______________________
`
`Decided: April 18, 2024
`______________________
`
`CYNTHIA A. TORREZ, San Antonio, TX, pro se.
`
`
` MARIANA TERESA ACEVEDO, Commercial Litigation
`Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
`tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
`sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.
`MCCARTHY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Y. KEN LEE, ANDREW J.
`STEINBERG, Office of General Counsel, United States De-
`partment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
`______________________
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1945 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 04/18/2024
`
`2
`
`TORREZ v. MCDONOUGH
`
`
`Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE, Circuit Judge, and
`ALBRIGHT, District Judge.∗
`
`PER CURIAM.
`Cynthia A. Torrez appeals an order from the Court of
`Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) denying her
`petition for a writ of mandamus. We affirm-in-part and
`dismiss-in-part.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Ricardo Torrez served on active duty in the United
`States Air Force from June 1979 to May 1995. Appx. 30.1
`In January 2011, he filed requests with the Department of
`Veterans Affairs (VA) seeking service connection for at
`least thirteen disabilities, requesting to reopen previously
`denied service connection claims for five disabilities, and
`requesting increased ratings for two disabilities. In July
`2011, Mr. Torrez passed away. Mrs. Torrez, his surviving
`spouse, subsequently sought service connection for Mr.
`Torrez’s cause of death. Appx. 43.
`In April 2013, the VA regional office (RO) granted ser-
`vice connection for two claims and denied the remaining
`claims. Mrs. Torrez appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
`peals (Board). The Board remanded the claims to the RO
`twice for further development, first in June 2015 and again
`in May 2018.
`In October 2020, the Board denied the claims. Mrs.
`Torrez appealed to the Veterans Court. In April 2022, the
`
`∗ Honorable Alan D Albright, District Judge, United
`States District Court for the Western District of Texas, sit-
`ting by designation.
`
`“Appx.” refers to the Appendix attached to Re-
`
`spondent’s Informal Brief.
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1945 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 04/18/2024
`
`TORREZ v. MCDONOUGH
`
`3
`
`Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s denial of some claims
`and remanded the remaining claims for further develop-
`ment and adjudication. Mrs. Torrez appealed to this court,
`and we affirmed the Veterans Court’s decision. Appx. 3;
`see also Torrez v. McDonough, No. 2022-1909, 2022 WL
`16908625 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2022).
`In August 2022, Mrs. Torrez petitioned the Veterans
`Court alleging the Board unreasonably delayed adjudicat-
`ing the claims remanded in the court’s April 2022 decision
`and seeking extraordinary relief by writ of mandamus.
`Appx. 1, 3. The Veterans Court evaluated the merits of
`Mrs. Torrez’s mandamus petition and applied the legal
`framework from Telecommunications Research & Action
`Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 79–80 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (TRAC),
`which outlines six factors for the court to consider when
`analyzing mandamus petitions based on alleged unreason-
`able delay by the VA. Appx. 3–4; see also Martin v.
`O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338, 1344–45 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The
`court denied the mandamus petition because it found the
`VA’s alleged delay in developing and adjudicating Mrs.
`Torrez’s claims was not so unreasonable as to warrant a
`writ of mandamus. Appx. 5. Mrs. Torrez appeals.
`DISCUSSION
`Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
`Court is limited by statute. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We may
`review “the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on
`a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any in-
`terpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a fac-
`tual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in
`making the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). Unless the ap-
`peal presents a constitutional issue, we “may not review
`(A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a chal-
`lenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a par-
`ticular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). We have jurisdiction
`to review the Veterans Court’s rulings on mandamus peti-
`tions. See Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1945 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 04/18/2024
`
`4
`
`TORREZ v. MCDONOUGH
`
`2002). We review a denial of mandamus for abuse of dis-
`cretion. Id. at 1384.
`When an allegedly unreasonable delay is the basis of a
`mandamus petition, the Veterans Court analyzes the peti-
`tion’s merits under the framework articulated in TRAC.
`See Martin, 891 F.3d at 1344–45 (quoting TRAC, 750 F.2d
`at 80). TRAC sets forth six factors to consider:
`(1) the time agencies take to make decisions must
`be governed by a “rule of reason”; (2) where Con-
`gress has provided a timetable or other indication
`of the speed with which it expects the agency to
`proceed in the enabling statute, that statutory
`scheme may supply content for this rule of reason;
`(3) delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of
`economic regulation are less tolerable when human
`health and welfare are at stake; (4) the court
`should consider the effect of expediting delayed ac-
`tion on agency activities of a higher or competing
`priority; (5) the court should also take into account
`the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by
`delay; and (6) the court need not find “any impro-
`priety lurking behind agency lassitude” in order to
`hold that agency action is unreasonably delayed.
`
`Id.
`
`I
`The Veterans Court did not commit legal error or abuse
`its discretion in denying the mandamus petition. The Vet-
`erans Court properly applied the TRAC factors to assess
`whether Mrs. Torrez was entitled to a writ compelling the
`VA to more expeditiously process her claims seeking ser-
`vice connection for several disabilities. Appx. 4–5. It found
`the first, second, fourth, and sixth TRAC factors weighed
`against issuing a writ; although the third and fifth TRAC
`factors favored a writ, those factors did not outweigh the
`others. Id.
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1945 Document: 21 Page: 5 Filed: 04/18/2024
`
`TORREZ v. MCDONOUGH
`
`5
`
`Specifically, the Veterans Court found that, although
`the nature and extent of Mrs. Torrez’s interest weighed in
`favor of issuing a writ (third and fifth TRAC factors), the
`VA’s delay was inherent in the adjudication and develop-
`ment of veterans’ benefits claims. Id. It explained that
`much of the delay resulted from the VA’s compliance with
`its legal duty to help Mrs. Torrez obtain the necessary med-
`ical records to develop her claims (first TRAC factor); that
`Congress did not establish a timeline for agency adjudica-
`tion claims (second TRAC factor); that a judicial mandate
`forcing the VA to work faster would shift the VA’s resources
`from other veterans ahead of Mrs. Torrez in the Board’s
`queue system, effectively allowing Mrs. Torrez to cut in line
`(fourth TRAC factor); and that there was no reason to think
`the VA had acted wrongfully (sixth TRAC factor). Id. The
`Veterans Court therefore determined issuance of a writ
`was not justified because the VA had not unreasonably de-
`layed. Id. at 5.
`Mrs. Torrez does not show the Veterans Court abused
`its discretion in reaching its conclusion, especially consid-
`ering the demanding standard for mandamus. Nor does
`she allege any legal error. We may not review the Veterans
`Court’s straightforward application of the TRAC factors to
`the particular facts of this case unless there is a constitu-
`tional claim, see 38 U.S.C. § 7292, and here, there is no con-
`stitutional claim.
`
`II
`Mrs. Torrez requests relief in the form of her husband’s
`disability pension. See Appellant’s Informal Br. at 3. To
`the extent Mrs. Torrez’s appeal raises arguments concern-
`ing the merits of her underlying service connection claims
`for various disabilities, it is outside the scope of our review.
`When a veteran or beneficiary petitions for a writ of man-
`damus, we “may not review the factual merits” of the un-
`derlying claim, “but we may determine whether the
`petitioner has satisfied the legal standard for issuing the
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1945 Document: 21 Page: 6 Filed: 04/18/2024
`
`6
`
`TORREZ v. MCDONOUGH
`
`writ.” Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir.
`2013). In particular, “we do not interfere with the [Veter-
`ans Court]’s role as the final appellate arbiter of the facts
`underlying a veteran’s claim or the application of veterans’
`benefits law to the particular facts of a veteran’s case.” Id.;
`see also 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
`To the extent Mrs. Torrez’s request for disability pen-
`sion refers to her earlier claims that the Board denied and
`the Veterans Court affirmed, Appx. 25–26, we have already
`affirmed the Veterans Court’s decision. Appx. 3; see also
`Torrez, 2022 WL 16908625, at *4. To the extent Mrs. Tor-
`rez’s request for disability pension refers to her earlier
`claims that the Veterans Court remanded, Appx. 25, each
`of those claims is currently on remand to the Board for fur-
`ther adjudication and development. Appx. 3, 4. The Vet-
`erans Court has not yet rendered a decision on those
`claims, so we lack jurisdiction to address them. See
`38 U.S.C. § 7292. Our jurisdiction here is limited to the
`propriety of the Veterans Court’s denial of the mandamus
`petition. Therefore, we dismiss Mrs. Torrez’s other claims
`and requests for relief.
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Veterans
`Court’s denial of mandamus, and we dismiss the appeal as
`to other issues.
`AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`