Case: 25-1396 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 12/30/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CHRISTINA D. THUNDATHIL, Claimant-Appellant

v.

DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2025-1396 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 24-8039, Judge William S. Green- berg. ______________________

Decided: December 30, 2025 ______________________

CHRISTINA D. THUNDATHIL, Winter Haven, FL, pro se.

BLAKE WILLIAM COWMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre- sented by MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE; EVAN SCOTT GRANT, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. Case: 25-1396 Document: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 12/30/2025

2 THUNDATHIL v. COLLINS

______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Christina Thundathil appeals a decision from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) dis- missing her appeal as untimely. S. Appx. 1. 1 Because we lack jurisdiction over Ms. Thundathil’s arguments on ap- peal, we dismiss. BACKGROUND Ms. Thundathil is a former Army servicemember who sought service connection for post-traumatic stress disor- der (PTSD). S. Appx. 9–10. In an August 2019 rating de- cision, the Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) granted her service connection with an effective date of June 18, 2012. Id. In July 2020, she appealed that decision to the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board), seeking an ear- lier effective date. S. Appx. 10. She withdrew her appeal shortly thereafter, and in September 2022, the Board dis- missed her case. S. Appx. 2; S. Appx. 9–11. In its dismis- sal, the Board notified her that any further appeal to the Veterans Court must be filed within 120 days. S. Appx. 2; S. Appx. 9–12. More than two years later, Ms. Thundathil filed a VA Form 9 (Board appeal form) at the relevant RO and requested review of her PTSD and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) claims. S. Appx. 2. The RO could not process her form, however, because there was no Statement of the Case associated with her claims. Id. Ms. Thundathil then filed a notice of appeal to the Vet- erans Court identifying a “July sometime” Board decision.

1 “S. Appx.” refers to the supplemental appendix at- tached to Respondent’s brief. Case: 25-1396 Document: 36 Page: 3 Filed: 12/30/2025

THUNDATHIL v. COLLINS 3

Id. The Secretary moved to dismiss the appeal. Id. In response, Ms. Thundathil argued she was entitled to equi- table tolling because she was suicidal and was misled and harassed by the VA and local law enforcement, which worked together to deny her benefits. S. Appx. 3. The Vet- erans Court dismissed her appeal without reaching the merits of her equitable tolling arguments, explaining the VA Form 9 (Board appeal form) is not the correct form to initiate RO review and that she should instead file a VA Form 20-0995 (RO supplemental claim request) if she de- sires RO review. Id. The Veterans Court also informed Ms. Thundathil that, if she sought to appeal the Septem- ber 2022 Board decision dismissing her withdrawn PTSD claim, she had leave to file a motion for reconsideration presenting equitable tolling arguments within twenty-one days. S. Appx. 3–4. After Ms. Thundathil failed to file a motion for reconsideration, the Veterans Court dismissed her case. S. Appx. 1. Ms. Thundathil appeals. DISCUSSION Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans Court is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We “have exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpreta- tion thereof [by the Veterans Court] . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent pre- sented and necessary to a decision.” Id. § 7292(c). Absent a constitutional challenge, we may not “review (A) a chal- lenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). A litigant seeking equitable tolling must establish (1) diligent pursuit of his rights; and (2) an extraordinary circumstance that prevented him from meet- ing the filing deadline. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005) (citing Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990)). Case: 25-1396 Document: 36 Page: 4 Filed: 12/30/2025

4 THUNDATHIL v. COLLINS

Ms. Thundathil argues the Veterans Court erred by not determining that equitable tolling applied. Appellant’s Br. 14–15. Specifically, she argues her untimely filing was entitled to equitable tolling because (1) the Board misled her by giving her the wrong forms, and (2) the Board and local law enforcement were responsible for her suicide at- tempt. Id. at 15. Ms. Thundathil identifies no legal error in the Veterans Court’s decision that would give us juris- diction over this issue, and she rejected the Veterans Court’s invitation to explain whether she believed she was entitled to equitable tolling. See S. Appx. 7. We are a court of limited jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d). We cannot re- view application of law to fact, and we cannot make fact findings related to equitable tolling in the first instance. Id. The proper course would have been for Ms. Thundathil, as the Veterans Court instructed, to file a motion for recon- sideration with that court. Because the Veterans Court did not adjudicate Ms. Thundathil’s equitable tolling claim, we have no jurisdiction to reach this issue. Ms. Thundathil also raises several due process and equal protection arguments, which we lack jurisdiction to review. See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 9, 12, 21, 26–35. While Ms. Thundathil alleges constitutional claims, she fails to explain how her allegations give rise to a plausible viola- tion of her constitutionally protected rights. Ms. Thunda- thil cannot reasonably assert she was deprived of notice and an opportunity to be heard where the Veteran’s Court invited her to clarify the issues she was appealing and she declined to do so. See id. at 5–6; S. Appx. 3–4. While we read pro se filings liberally, bare invocations of the Consti- tution are insufficient to grant us jurisdiction. Hefler v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that a veteran’s “characterization of [ ] question[s] as constitu- tional in nature does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack”). Case: 25-1396 Document: 36 Page: 5 Filed: 12/30/2025

THUNDATHIL v. COLLINS 5

CONCLUSION We have considered Ms. Thundathil’s remaining argu- ments and find them unpersuasive. Because Ms. Thunda- thil has not raised arguments within the scope of our limited jurisdiction, we dismiss. DISMISSED COSTS No costs.