Case ID: f-appx_430/html/0611-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pierre GENEVIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-57040.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed May 3, 2011.
    Pierre Genevier, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Assistant U.S. Attorney, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Mary Beth O’Connor, Special Assistant U.S., Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Attorney SSA, Esquire, U.S. Social Security, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendanf-Appellee.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pierre Genevier appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action against the Commissioner of Social Security alleging improper denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s decision. Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s determination that Genevier did not establish that he was a “qualified alien” eligible to receive SSI. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1611(a), 1641(b) (an alien who is not a “qualified alien” is generally not eligible for any federal public benefit); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.1618(a), (d) (an alien may be eligible for SSI benefits if permanently residing in the United States with the knowledge and permission of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which the Commissioner must verify).

Genevier’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.