Christina D. Thundathil v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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. T HUNDATHIL , Winter Haven, FL, pro se.
BLAKE W ILLIAM COWMAN, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by MARTIN F. HOCKEY , J R., P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
BRETT SHUMATE; EVAN SCOTT G RANT , BRIAN D. G RIFFIN,
Office of General Counsel, United States Department of
Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 25-1396 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 12/30/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

THUNDATHIL v. COLLINS 2
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, T ARANTO and HUGHES ,
Circuit Judges.
P ER 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: 2 Filed: 12/30/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

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.
D ISCUSSION
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: 3 Filed: 12/30/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

THUNDATHIL v. COLLINS 4
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: 4 Filed: 12/30/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

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.
Case: 25-1396 Document: 36 Page: 5 Filed: 12/30/2025

-- 5 of 5 --