Filomena O. Giray, Petitioner, v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Respondent, 972 F.2d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 972 F.2d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1992) May 18, 1992

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.

ON MOTION

MAYER, Circuit Judge.


ORDER

The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs moves to suspend the requirement of filing a certified list, moves to waive the requirement of Fed. Cir. R. 27(d), and moves to dismiss the petition for review of Filomena O. Giray. Giray has not filed a response.

On March 4, 1976, the VA regional office notified Giray that she had forfeited entitlement to any VA benefits because of the submission of false statements in connection with a VA investigation. Giray did not file a notice of disagreement or otherwise attempt to appeal the decision to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Now, Giray seeks review of the regional office's forfeiture decision in this court.

The court does not have jurisdiction to review Giray's petition. Pursuant to the Veterans' Judicial Review Act of 1988, this court has jurisdiction to review certain decisions of the Court of Veterans Appeals, 38 U.S.C. § 7292, and has jurisdiction to review certain actions of the Secretary, 38 U.S.C. § 502. With regard to the former, Giray is not seeking review of a decision of the Court of Veterans Appeals. With regard to the latter, judicial review is limited to the Secretary's actions concerning the promulgation or publication of VA rules and regulations. Hilario v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 937 F.2d 586, 588 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Giray is not seeking review of such action.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary's motion to suspend the requirement of filing a certified list is granted.

(2) The Secretary's motion to waive the requirement of Fed. Cir. R. 27(d) is granted.

(3) The Secretary's motion to dismiss Giray's petition is granted.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.