NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

AZUCENA P. OVALLE,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1000

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 19-2989, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, 

Jr. 

______________________ 

Decided: June 12, 2023

______________________ 

AZUCENA P. OVALLE, Brownsville, TX, pro se. 

 SEAN KELLY GRIFFIN, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

Case: 22-1000 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 06/12/2023
2 OVALLE v. MCDONOUGH

 ______________________ 

Before DYK, BRYSON, and STARK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM.

Azucena P. Ovalle appeals a decision of the Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

(“Board”) decision denying service connection for the cause 

of death of veteran, Jose P. Ovalle. Ovalle v. Tran, 

No. 19-2989 (Vet. App. Jan. 25, 2021). Because Ms. Ovalle 

does not raise a colorable legal challenge to the Veterans 

Court decision, we dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Ovalle served in the U.S. Army from June 1958 to 

May 1960. He died on March 19, 2007. The death certificate lists the cause of Mr. Ovalle’s death as “Respiratory 

Failure, Hepatic Cirrhosis, Portal Hypertension, Arterial 

Hypertension[, and] Part II Prostrate Hypertrophy.” 

S.A. 106. At the time of his death, the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) had not determined he had a serviceconnected disability, nor did he have any pending claims 

before the VA. 

Following Mr. Ovalle’s death, in December 2007, 

Ms. Ovalle1 filed a claim for service-connected death benefits.2 Ms. Ovalle claims that Mr. Ovalle suffered from 

1 The Veterans Court noted that there is conflicting 

evidence as to whether Ms. Ovalle is in fact Mr. Ovalle’s 

surviving spouse. The VA has not challenged Ms. Ovalle’s 

status as Mr. Ovalle’s surviving spouse, and, other than 

noting the discrepancy in the evidence, the Veterans Court 

did not address the issue.

2 Ms. Ovalle also filed other claims which were denied, raising issues not relevant to this appeal.

Case: 22-1000 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 06/12/2023
OVALLE v. MCDONOUGH 3

psychiatric trauma from an injury sustained during combat that supposedly took place in Germany in 1958. 

Ms. Ovalle claims this psychiatric trauma led to his death

from heart disease or organ failure. 

The VA regional office (RO) denied Ms. Ovalle’s claim. 

She appealed to the Board. In September 2018, after several remands, the Board upheld the denial of Ms. Ovalle’s 

claim.

Ms. Ovalle appealed the Board decision to the Veterans 

Court, which in January 2021 affirmed the Board decision. 

The Veterans Court liberally construed Ms. Ovalle’s appeal 

to assert (1) that the Board disregarded her lay testimony 

regarding Mr. Ovalle’s medical conditions, and (2) that the 

VA violated its duty to assist and due process by failing to

provide her materials in Spanish and by failing to assist 

her in obtaining Mr. Ovalle’s service records. The Veterans 

Court rejected her arguments and affirmed the Board’s decision. Ms. Ovalle appeals.

DISCUSSION

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, we may review decisions of the 

Veterans Court only for a challenge to the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation, or on constitutional 

grounds. Absent a constitutional issue, we lack jurisdiction 

to 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.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); see Wanless v. 

Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

In her informal brief, Ms. Ovalle contends, as she did 

before the Veterans Court, that the Board failed to credit

lay evidence of Mr. Ovalle’s psychiatric symptoms and 

that, based on the evidence, the Board should have decided 

her case differently. We lack jurisdiction to review the factual findings made by the Board and affirmed by the Veterans Court.

Case: 22-1000 Document: 35 Page: 3 Filed: 06/12/2023
4 OVALLE v. MCDONOUGH

Ms. Ovalle contends that the VA violated the duty to 

assist by refusing to provide her materials in Spanish and 

refusing to assist in obtaining Mr. Ovalle’s service records. 

But, as the Veterans Court noted, Ms. Ovalle did not cite 

anything in the record indicating that she had informed the 

VA of her difficulty understanding English, and throughout the pendency of Ms. Ovalle’s claim adjudication, she 

represented herself in English without apparent difficulty. 

As for Mr. Ovalle’s service records, as the Veterans Court 

noted, the VA had in fact assisted Ms. Ovalle in trying to 

locate records, and “the reason Ms. Ovalle did not have 

those records was because they do not exist, not because 

VA failed in its statutory duty to provide them.” S.A. 11. 

There was no colorable argument that the VA violated its 

statutory duty to assist, nor does Ms. Ovalle establish a colorable due process violation.

We have considered Ms. Ovalle’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive.

Because Ms. Ovalle raises no colorable claim of legal 

error, we dismiss.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 22-1000 Document: 35 Page: 4 Filed: 06/12/2023