decided under the correct standard is not for us to say. CONCLUSION We vacate the Veterans Court’s decision and remand for application of the correct statutory standard. VACATED AND REMANDED. REYNA, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The majority finds subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal based on an apparent concession from the government where it “recognized our jurisdiction” at oral argument. I disagree on this informal granting of jurisdiction. It is well recognized that “no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court. Thus, the consent of the parties is irrelevant....” Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982); see also Cromer v. Nicholson, 455 F.3d 1346, 1348 (Fed.Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). A more searching review of our jurisdiction
holding that even where subjectmatter jurisdiction may go unchallenged on appeal we have an obligation to inquire sua sponte into our jurisdiction over the matter recognizing that even if neither party disputes this courts subject matter jurisdiction under 38 usc  7292 we are obligated to consider the issue sua sponte if there is reason to doubt that jurisdiction exists recognizing federal courts duty to determine matter of its own jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it becomes apparent that jurisdiction may be lacking holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims not raised below by the alien even when the bia reviews the claim sua sponte recognizing every federal appellate court has a special obligation to consider its own jurisdiction even if it must do so sua sponte