       NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.


  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

            IGNACIO E. CASTILLO, JR.,
                Claimant-Appellant

                           v.

 DAVID J. SHULKIN, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
                   AFFAIRS,
              Respondent-Appellee
             ______________________

                      2016-1539
                ______________________

   Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 14-1498, Judge Robert N. Davis.
                ______________________

                Decided: April 10, 2017
                ______________________

   KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Law Offices of Carpenter
Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.

    MOLLIE LENORE FINNAN, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.
Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.
KIRSCHMAN, JR., MARTIN F. HOCKEY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN,
CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, Office of General Counsel, Unit-
2                                        CASTILLO   v. SHULKIN



ed States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington,
DC.
               ______________________

    Before LOURIE, MOORE, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
    Ignacio E. Castillo, Jr. (“Castillo”) appeals from a final
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veter-
ans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals’ (“the Board”) decision granting him a
30% initial disability rating. See Ignacia E. Castillo, Jr.
v. Robert A. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, No.
14-1498, 2015 WL 6605543 (Vet. App. Oct. 30, 2015).
    The scope of our review in an appeal from the Veter-
ans Court is limited. We may review the validity of a
decision with respect to a rule of a law or interpretation of
a statute or regulation that was relied upon by the Veter-
ans Court in making its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a)
(2002). Except with respect to constitutional issues, this
Court “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual deter-
mination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as
applied to the facts of a particular case.”           Id. at
§ 7292(d)(2).
    Despite Castillo’s attempts to frame his arguments as
legal challenges, his appeal, at its core, seeks to imper-
missibly challenge the Board’s application of law to the
facts of his case. Thus, the appeal is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
                       DISMISSED
