Recinto v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2648
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Filipino WWII veterans and widows sought one-time FVEC payments; eligibility hinged on service verification and statutory requirements.
- FVEC, enacted in 2009, provides lump-sum payments ($15,000 for US citizens, $9,000 for non-citizens) to qualifying individuals.
- FVEC claims are administered by the VA, with initial regional office decisions and appeals to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and, ultimately, the Veterans Court system.
- Seven veterans submitted claims with NPRC-verifiable service evidence; NPRC could not verify their Commonwealth Army or guerrilla service, leading to denial.
- Twenty-one widows did not file FVEC claims because their spouses died before FVEC enactment and they were thus ineligible.
- District court dismissed the claims on the pleadings for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; plaintiffs appeal challenging two claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the VJRA bar district-court review of the due-process claim? | Plaintiffs contend VA policy and NPRC-record-verification process infringe due process. | VA claims review implicates benefits decisions; VJRA precludes district-court review of such claims. | VJRA bars district-court review of the due-process claim. |
| Does FVEC violate equal protection on its face, and is there jurisdiction to hear that challenge? | FVEC discriminates against Filipino veterans by providing lesser benefits than U.S. veterans. | Disparity stems from Territory Clause; rational-basis review applies; no new classification by the Act. | Court has jurisdiction to hear facial equal-protection challenge; claim survives dismissal analysis and is ultimately rejected on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2012) (limits district court review of veterans-benefits decisions under VJRA)
- Krainski v. Nev. ex rel. Bd. of Regents, 616 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2010) (procedural due-process inquiry requires deprivation of protected interest and adequate process)
- Besinga v. United States, 14 F.3d 1356 (9th Cir. 1994) (territory-based discrimination upheld under rational-basis review)
- Quiban v. Veterans Admin., 928 F.2d 1154 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (restricting benefits to U.S. veterans permissible under rational basis)
- In re Meruelo Maddux Props., Inc., 667 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (statutory text governs interpretations when plain)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. E.P.A., 217 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (consider statute as a whole when interpreting congressional intent)
- Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for evaluating pleadings under Iqbal and Twombly)