With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". had misled him into believing that he could file a motion for reconsideration of the Board’s March 30, 2000, decision at any time and still preserve his appellate rights. DISCUSSION This court’s jurisdiction to review a judgment of the Veterans Court is limited by 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), which provides that “[e]xcept to the extent that an appeal ... presents a constitutional issue, the Court of Appeals may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” To the extent that Mr. Phillips’s appeal presents a challenge to 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) as applied to the facts of his particular case, we do not have jurisdiction to consider his argument. See Leonard v. Gober, 223 F.3d 1374 (Fed.Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). For that reason, we do not have jurisdiction

A: holding that equitable tolling is available to avoid time limitations in the statutory provisions governing veterans benefits
B: holding that we lacked jurisdiction to review the veterans courts determination that equitable tolling did not apply in the case before it
C: holding that equitable tolling principles apply to suits against the united states in the same manner as they apply to private parties
D: recognizing that the determination is an equitable one
B.