Full Opinion

Case: 26-1574 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 11/10/2026 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LEE HOLLAND, Claimant-Appellant v. DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________ 2026-1574 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 25-8328, Judge Coral Wong Pi- etsch. ______________________ Decided: November 10, 2026 ______________________ LEE HOLLAND, JR., Rockport, TX, pro se. NELSON KUAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE. ______________________ Case: 26-1574 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 11/10/2026 2 HOLLAND v. COLLINS Before STOLL, LINN, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Lee Holland, Jr. seeks review of a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Vet- erans Court”) dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). As we lack jurisdic- tion, we dismiss. I Mr. Holland served in the U.S. Navy during multiple periods between 1961 and 1989. Mr. Holland later filed a claim for service-connected disability benefits with a Vet- erans Administration (“VA”) Regional Office (“RO”). His claim was based on multiple medical conditions, including hypertension, post-traumatic stress disorder, gastroesoph- ageal reflux disorder, Parkinson’s-like symptoms, periph- eral neuropathy, lower back disability, and heart and lung disabilities. After the RO denied his claim, he appealed to the Board. On April 4, 2025, the Board dismissed his claim with respect to various conditions (the “Dismissed Claims”) and remanded to the RO with respect to other conditions, specifically, his heart and lung conditions (the “Remanded Claims”). More than five months later, on October 2, 2025, Mr. Holland filed a Notice of Appeal (“NOA”), seeking to appeal the Board’s April 2025 decision to the Veterans Court. The Veterans Court dismissed his appeal for two reasons. First, with respect to the Dismissed Claims, the Veterans Court found Mr. Holland filed his NOA after the 120-day deadline for doing so, making his appeal untimely. Second, with respect to the Remanded Claims, the Veter- ans Court found a lack of a final decision, leaving the court with no jurisdiction. Thus, the Veterans Court dismissed his appeal. Case: 26-1574 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 11/10/2026 HOLLAND v. COLLINS 3 Mr. Holland then timely filed his appeal with this court. The parties have filed informal briefs, and Mr. Hol- land has also filed a memorandum in lieu of oral argument. Having considered all of these materials and the entire rec- ord, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss this appeal. II “This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions by the Vet- erans Court is limited.” Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “We have exclusive jurisdic- tion ‘to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision.’” Id. (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c) (2006)). Absent a constitu- tional issue, however, “we may not review the Veterans Court’s factual findings or its application of law to facts.” Checo v. Shinseki, 748 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Where we have jurisdiction, we “review de novo a claim that the Veterans Court committed legal error.” Bonner v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2007). III We lack jurisdiction over the issues Mr. Holland raises in this appeal. A Mr. Holland first asks us to reverse the Veterans Court’s determination that his appeal of the Board’s han- dling of the Dismissed Claims was untimely. Mr. Holland does not dispute on appeal that when he filed his NOA, on October 2, 2025, more than 120 days had elapsed since the date the Board had mailed its decision, on April 4, 2025. See 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) (“In order to obtain review by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims of a final decision of Case: 26-1574 Document: 15 Page: 4 Filed: 11/10/2026 4 HOLLAND v. COLLINS the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, a person adversely affected by such decision shall file a notice of appeal with the Court within 120 days after the date on which notice of the deci- sion is issued . . . .”). Mr. Holland can only overcome that untimeliness by showing he should obtain equitable tolling under Veterans Court Rule 4(a)(3)(B)(i), which he attempts to do by pointing to severe lower back pain, back surgery, and what he asserts is “a reduction of Staff working at the United States Veterans Administration.” Informal Open. Br. at 1. The Veterans Court found that Mr. Holland failed to demonstrate that the deadline for filing his NOA should be equitably tolled. In reaching this conclusion, the Veterans Court applied the three-factor test we have described as “consistent with other jurisdictions and also with the guid- ance provided by the Supreme Court.” Checo, 748 F.3d at 1378. That is, the Veterans Court required Mr. Holland to show: “(1) extraordinary circumstance; (2) due diligence; and (3) causation.” Id. We lack jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s ap- plication of this test to the facts of Mr. Holland’s case. See Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (declining to consider arguments that “would require re- view of the Veteran’s Court’s application of law to fact”); Albun v. Braun, 9 F.3d 1528, 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (finding no jurisdiction to review factual findings of Veterans Court relating to jurisdictional issues). Accordingly, we must dis- miss this aspect of Mr. Holland’s appeal. B Mr. Holland also argues that the VA violated his right to due process by delaying making findings with respect to his Remanded Claims. Liberally construed, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), Mr. Holland’s informal briefing argues that the Veterans Court should have con- sidered the VA’s delay in its equitable tolling analysis of Mr. Holland’s NOA of the Board’s April 2025 decision and Case: 26-1574 Document: 15 Page: 5 Filed: 11/10/2026 HOLLAND v. COLLINS 5 that the Veterans Court erred in its February 2026 deci- sion by not reviewing the RO’s August 2025 and Septem- ber 2025 decisions. That Mr. Holland frames his contentions as due process arguments does not confer ju- risdiction on our court. See Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To the extent that he has simply put a ‘due process’ label on his contention . . . , his claim is con- stitutional in name only. . . . [His] characterization of that question as constitutional in nature does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack.”). Thus, we dismiss this aspect of Mr. Holland’s appeal as well. 1 IV We have considered Mr. Holland’s remaining argu- ments and find they do not establish that we have jurisdic- tion. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED COSTS No costs. 1 The Veterans Court noted that, on remand, the VA denied Mr. Holland’s claims relating to his heart and lung conditions in August and September of 2025. These deci- sions are not part of this appeal. As the Veterans Court noted, if “Mr. Holland is dissatisfied with the August and September 2025 RO decisions issued in response to the Board’s April 2025 remand, he is free to seek review of those decisions, including by filing an appeal to the Board and, if necessary, by appealing to the [Veterans] Court.” Supplemental Appendix at 3-4.