to the extent Plaintiff attempts to couch his claims for benefits as a deprivation of constitutional rights, that maneuver cannot rescue him from dismissal. “A veteran may not circumvent these jurisdictional limitations [set forth in the VJRA] by cloaking a benefits claim in consti rt’s' inquiry because “under § 511(a) certain constitutional claims are not precluded from review by the district court.” Pate, 881 F.Supp. at 556 (citing Larrabee by Jones v. Derwinski, 968 F.2d 1497, 1500 (2d Cir.1992)). District courts retain jurisdiction over facial challenges to acts of Congress or an agency rule under the scope of 5 U.S.C. § 552 (including VA regulations that violate- other lawful acts of Congress). See Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U.S. 535, 544, 108 S.Ct. 1372, 99 L.Ed.2d 618 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Beamon, 125 F.3d at 972-73. But, this case
holding that the question of whether an existing constitutional right is infringed is strictly a question of law holding that the question whether a va regulation violates the rehabilitation act is not foreclosed from judicial review by the vjra holding that interpretation of regulation by va that conflicted with plain meaning of regulation not entitled to deference holding that the question whether a party has agreed to submit an issue to arbitration is a question of law requiring de novo review holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record