may after exhausting all available administrators remedies obtain judicial review of quote any final decision unquote of the railroad over time for the board here no longer contests that petition or christo twenty fourteen decision filing in each one a form with the board the board replied to him in october of twenty four team merely reaffirming a standing by its earlier decision so the decision before that he's requesting review of before this court is actually the full third twenty four teams and in my opinion the only remaining barrier of them to this court passing on the merits of mr so it's petition is deciding whether that april third twenty fourteen letter constitutes quote any final that decisions denying requests to reopen under the social security act are not reviewable under that statute and instead of actually confirming the board's position the tasha will differences between the social security act who may seek review the decision that may be reviewed that's arguably one way to read this section and another way to read it is that since there is that reference back to some sections see that the statute does have different language than the census theory act but essentially it's setting up the same type of procedure now one that statute of limitations is your honor is referring to and we know from just looking inside it forty five u s c three fifty five felt that congress knew how to use the term such as they did in the social security act to refer back to a subset of final decisions in numerous s recognize most recently the el paso case by this court into kind of a holder by the supreme court in two thousand and nine that which requires a clear and convincing evidence that the congress meant to preclude judicial review it seems that if there is any doubt on the of the matter being reviewed is created by agency regulation in fact in two kennedy holder the court ended by noting the separation of powers powers concerns that should caution courts i'm quoting from reading legislation absent a clear determination but having given him that it would be quite odd i think to suggest that the board's actions giving itself the power to do so would insulate those decisions from judicial review and i'd like to take a step back because  cannot predict all the process he's an ancillary decision that the board might need to require or to create processes that the board might need to create ex ante and decide which of these we can't predict which which process of the board will prevail so we're going to allow these people that are we know the universe of potential claimants in decisions that is the people that claim benefits as defined in the beginning clause of three fifty five out we're going to allow them if they of peter frivolous litigation are certainly no stranger to this court and the courts and as well as the minister agencies have ways of dealing with them i submit that you know rule thirty eight could be invoked if there were cases where a twenty five years or something like that that we would be reviewing i'm sorry couldn't hear the last part of that i'm not talking about the same litigants doing it over and over again i'm talking about twenty five refusals to reopen a year that the the list of criteria it uses for deciding whether or not to reopen a benefits determination most of them are actually geared towards reducing claimants benefit and so i don't think that the board should be able to escape just review just because some people are complaining that they've done their job and accurately it doesn't necessarily it does or excuse me it does not qualify all the preceding categories i think that what they were what congress was going for when it was talking about other parties and grieve was merely trying to describe and get at most benefits that is the initial claim brought by the applicant that's the kind of the title is every subsection refers to the claim a real decision doesn't necessarily hinge on any claim at all in fact as i said earlier most of the time most of the different definition of what it considers to be subsection c decisions if you look at page i think it's twenty seven of the read brief they were for to their own regulation twenty four to sixty eight point one which tries to define the list of actually become another initial benefits ruling because in that case it would have to remain at it back down to the initial benefits level and then full appeal rights what attached to the revised decision and as with it is actually something that i mean  so the plain language of that it's taken in context of the entire statute show that a final decision is a particular type of agency action and not every agency determination is a final decision  language from congressional intent you said it would be a logical just as an abstract matter why would it be a logical for congress to provide for judicial review just to look at the history of the very good term an actor can see the statute of limitations is there from the very first day the ac district court their own retirement act provides for initial review reconsideration a hearing and a board decision and an appeal to the court of appeals so the language in sanders which talks about any decision after hearing is actually just similar to the language in their retirement which talks about the ministry of exhaustion administrative exhaustion includes the hearing and staff so even though they don't almost twenty years and there has been no evidence in anything anywhere that his it benefits were improperly calculated in fact what he's arguing about is actually he doesn't like the way usually get it earlier because you can retire earlier either of retirement then when you come into the social security benefit you got a letter from social security isn't all yours or so security money but you are you've been getting it you begin to get the whole time  so we say well basically going to doubt that so we're going to deduct that extra money that's our security is now giving you because you already are getting it but what happens with a lot of the claimants as they see the latter from social security and they think judge henderson was that once you are start receiving social security benefits then that amount is deemed ducted that is a new initial determination whether it's under the retired railroad act or the social security act that is a new the national determination yes but just as far as the cost of living and that's the same  be clear if i was receiving a thousand dollars a month and then cost of living kicks in and i'm receiving seven hundred dollars a month even though those are just automatic calculations arithmetic calculations that's seven hundred dollars determination is used by the board as an initial decision yeah the cost of dollars and and the board says that's because of a two percent cost of living adjustment there would be so one of my what can the appeal be more like the you are receiving say seven hundred dollars and you get an extra thirty dollars  in particular a lot invoking congress concern for finality i don't think that's true in a world as here where congress has provided and provided the board may create such procedures