       NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.


  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

              DOROTHY LAFORTUNE,
                Claimant-Appellant

                           v.

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

                      2016-2350
                ______________________

   Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 15-1381, Judge Mary J. Schoelen.
                ______________________

              Decided: September 8, 2017
                ______________________

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

    SARAH CHOI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represent-
ed by JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,
ALLISON KIDD-MILLER; Y. KEN LEE, MARTIE ADELMAN,
CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, Office of General Counsel, Unit-
2                                    LAFORTUNE   v. SHULKIN



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

    Before MOORE, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
     Our jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans
Court is limited by statute. Unless an appeal raises a
constitutional issue, we lack jurisdiction to review “a
challenge to a factual determination” or “a challenge to a
law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular
case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). The issues raised on appeal
are all limited to the appeal of fact findings as to whether
Ms. LaFortune and the veteran entered into a civ-
il/ceremonial or common-law marriage. We see no ques-
tion of law. Because Ms. LaFortune’s appeal only involves
factual determinations and the application of law to the
facts of the case, Ms. LaFortune’s appeal is beyond the
scope of our jurisdiction. We dismiss for lack of jurisdic-
tion.
                      DISSMISSED
                          COSTS
    No costs.
