UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 22-3306 GEORGE D. PREWITT, JR., PETITIONER, V. DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, RESPONDENT. Before PIETSCH, FALVEY, and JAQUITH, Judges. ORDER PIETSCH, Judge, filed the opinion of the Court. FALVEY, Judge, and JAQUITH, Judge, filed concurring opinions. On June 2, 2022, self-represented Army veteran George D. Prewitt, Jr., filed a petition for extraordinary relief regarding a case that was previously before the Court but was remanded in part to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board). Mr. Prewitt asserts that structural constitutional problems prevent the Board from adjudicating his case, and he asks the Court to take jurisdiction and resolve these issues. Because he does not show that he is entitled to extraordinary relief, we will deny his petition. I. FACTS In July 2019, Mr. Prewitt appealed an April 2019 Board decision that denied various elements of several disability claims. In July 2020, the Court issued a single-judge decision affirming the Board decision in part, dismissing it in part, and setting it aside in part, and remanding the set aside matter. In appealing the April 2019 Board decision, Mr. Prewitt argued that VA had violated his rights under the U.S. Constitution's Due Process and Takings Clauses. But the Court declined to address Mr. Prewitt's constitutional arguments, finding that the Board had failed to consider relevant evidence and that remand was thus necessary for the Board to consider the evidence in the first instance. See Prewitt v. McDonough, No. 19-5262, 2020 WL 4103039, at *3-4 (Vet. App. July 21, 2020) (mem. dec.) (citing Mahl v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 37, 38 (2001) (per curiam order) ("[I]f the proper remedy is a remand, there is no need to analyze and discuss all the other claimed errors that would result in a remedy no broader than a remand.")); see Hensley v. West, 212 F.3d 1255, 1263-64 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that when a court of appeals reviews a lower court's decision, it may remand the case if the previous adjudicator failed to make findings of fact essential to the decision). Mr. Prewitt then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). In March 2021, the Federal Circuit dismissed his appeal, declining to review the matters remanded by this Court to the Board and finding that Mr. Prewitt's constitutional challenges were inextricably intertwined with the remanded matters. See Prewitt v. McDonough, 856 F. App'x 280, 282-83 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Mandate for this Court's single-judge decision issued in September 2021. In June 2022, Mr. Prewitt filed this petition, asking the Court to take jurisdiction over and decide questions of "structural[] constitutional" law that he claimed prevented the Board from hearing his case on remand. Prewitt v. McDonough, U.S. Vet. App. No. 22-3306, June 2, 2022, Amended Petition for Extraordinary Relief (Petition) at 1. He also moved for initial review by a panel, which was later granted. Petitioner's June 6, 2022, CAVC Rule 27.1 Motion for Initial Review by a Panel; Aug. 18, 2022, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals