Today the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, one nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, and seven nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Reyes v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Feliciana Reyes appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the denial of her claim for a one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund established by Section 1002 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 200–02 (2009). The De- partment of Veterans Affairs denied her claim because the Department of the Army “could not certify” that Ms. Reyes had served as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including the recognized guerillas, in the service of the United States Armed Forces. J.A. 4.

* * *

But ultimately, eligibility for the payment is not the Army’s responsibility to make; under the law, it is the Secretary who must make the eligibility determination based on the record evidence. Consistent with the Secretary’s concession and the disposition of Dela Cruz, we therefore affirm-in-part and remand to the Veterans Court to hold the case in abeyance pending consideration by the Corrections Board. We enter judgment nunc pro tunc as of the date this case was submitted, December 3, 2018.

American Relocation Connection v. United States (Nonprecedential)

This case involves a pre-award bid protest to a solicitation issued by Customs and Border Protection for the procurement of employee relocation services. American Relocation Connections, L.L.C. appeals a decision of the Court of Federal Claims granting judgment on the administrative record in favor of the government and dismissing ARC’s bid protest. See Am. Relocation Connections, L.L.C. v. United States, 139 Fed. Cl. 747 (Oct. 22, 2018). ARC claims that CBP violated Small Business Administration regulations by failing to consult with the SBA during its market research for the solicitation. Because ARC cannot show that it was prejudiced by CBP’s failure to consult with the SBA, we affirm.

Rule 36 Judgments