the decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). We “may not review (1) a challenge to a factual determination, or (2) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case,” unless the appeal presents a constitutional issue. Id. § 7292(d)(2). Here, Mr. Sanders’s appeal does not fall within the scope of our jurisdiction. Mr. Sanders’s appeal mainly pertains to his claim for benefits in relation to a spine injury. That claim, however, has not been fully adjudicated by the Board and the Veterans Court. In fact, the Board has already remanded Mr. Sanders’s spine injury claim to the VA regional office for further examination. Therefore, Mr. Sanders’s claim based on injury to his spine is not properly before us. See Kirkpatrick v. Nicholson, 417 F.3d 1361, 1365-66 (Fed.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Sanders also appears to appeal the
holding that the boards order to remand a claim to a va regional office that neither denied nor granted relief is not reviewable on appeal holding question of resubstitution separate from question of remand and thus reviewable on appeal holding remand order reviewable because crowded docket not ground for remand under  1447c holding that remand order based on forum selection clause is reviewable on appeal holding that the boards denial of a motion to reopen is reviewable by the federal courts of appeals