N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NAJEEB A E. M O H AM M AD, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-35415 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01391-B AT M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington B rian Tsuc hida , M a gistra t e Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d De c e m

be r 10, 2014 *** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS, M c KEOW N, a nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED D EC 23 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The pa

rtie s c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Na

je e ba M oha

m m a d a p p e a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing theALJ’ s de nia l of soc ia l se c urity

be ne fits. W e re vie w de novo a nd re ve rse only if the ALJ’ s de c ision wa s not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e or if the ALJ a pplie d the wrong le ga l sta nda rd. M olina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012). W e a ffirm . The ALJ found tha

t M oha m m a d wa s “ not e ntire ly

c re dible ” be c a

u se the re c o rd c onta ine d (1) a ffirm ative e vide nc e of m a linge ring a nd e xa gge ration of he r sym ptom s to obtain he r c hildre n’ s atte ntion; (2) m ultipleinc o nsiste nt sta

te m e nts re ga rding he r a c tivitie s; (3) disc re p anc ie s in thee vide nc e re ga rding he r a

bility to spe a k English a

nd Fa rsi; a n d (4) othe r e v ide nc e tha

t unde rm ine d

he r c la im s re ga rding theinte nsity , pe rsiste nc e , a nd limiting e ffe c ts of he r sym ptom s. As a re sult of this cre dibility

finding, the

ALJ a lso re

je c te d se ve ra l m e dic a l opinions tha t we re ba se d on M oha

m m a d’ s sta te m e nts. The ALJ’ s de te rm ination tha t M oha m m a d wa s not “ forthright” a bout he r la ngua ge a bilitie s is supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . As the ALJ e xpla ine d, M oha m m a d ha d be e n obse rve d spe ak ing English, a nd va rious individua

ls re porte d that the y ha d be e n a

ble to c om

m unic ate with he r in English, a l be it with some diffic u lty . M uc h of M oha m m a d’ s a rgum e nt c ha lle nge s the ALJ’ s de c ision to c re d it the re port of Doc tor M e inz , a n e xam ining psy c h ologist, which M oha m m a d c la im s is unre lia

ble due to insuffic ie nt tra

nsla t ion. B ut the c a se on whic h she 2re lie s, Ghok

a ssian v . Shalala , 41 F.3d 1300 (9th C ir. 1994), doe s not support her c la im . The c la im ant in tha t c a se c ha lle nge d

the ALJ’ s de c ision for c re d iting a m a linge ring dia gnosis m a de by a m e dic a l re side nt who did not use an inte rpre te r. Id. at 1302–03. B ut unlike Ghok assian , M e inzuse d a

n Irania n inte rpre te r who

“ ha d le arne d to inte rpre t” the Pa shtu tha t M oha m m a d spoke . W e are se nsitiveto the fa c t tha

t the re c ord m ight be ar “ m ore tha n one rationa l inte rpre t ation” a s to the e ffic a c y of the re sulting inte

rpre tation, but the ALJ’ s findings tha t c re dit this re

port are “ re a sona

bly drawn from

the re c ord” and the re fore m ust be uphe ld. Molina , 674 F.3d a

t 1111 (c iting Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th C ir. 2008)). Evide nc e of m a linge ring is a lso suffic ie nt to support a ne gat ive c re dibility finding, whic h would re n de r any c la im e d e rror re ga

rding M oha

m m a d’ s la ngua ge skills ha rm le ss. Se eBe nton e

x re l. Be nton v . Barnhart , 331 F.3d 1030, 1040–41 (9th C ir. 2003) (noting tha t e v ide nc e of m a l inge ring would support the re je c tion of a c la im ant’ s te s tim ony , but noting no suc h e vide n c e in tha

t c a se ). The e vide nc e of m a linge ring in there c ord he re inc lude s thre e insta nc e s in whic h M oha

m m a d’ s sym ptom s disa

ppe are d a fte r arriving a

t the e m e rge n c y

room with he r son, a psy c hologic a l e va luat ion tha t re fe rs to a

rule -out m a linge ring dia gnosis m a de by

3anothe r e xam ining psy c hologist, a nd the provisional m a linge ring dia gnosis from M e i nz . M oha m m a d’ s othe r argum e nts a

re unpe rsua sive be c a

use the ALJ offe re d

“ ge rm an e ” re a sons for disc ounting the e vide nc e tha

t she would ha

ve this c ourt c re d it. Se eMolina , 674 F.3d a t 1114 (re quiring theALJ to give“ re a sons tha t a re ge rm ane to e a c h witne ss” be fore disc ounting la y te stim o ny (quoting D o drill v . Shalala , 12 F.3d 915, 919 (9th C ir. 1993)). De spite the “ c lose bond” be t we e n M oha m m a d a nd he r the ra

pist, M s. M owat, the ALJ found M owat ’ s re lia bility to be unde rm ine d by

the fa c t tha

t she a c c e pte d M o ham

m a d’ s se lf-re p orte d sy

m ptom s. The opinion of the

nurse pra c titione r, M s. Fishe r, wa s inc onsiste nt with the obse rvations re c orde d in he r tre atm e nt note s. Fina lly , the ALJ offe re d two le gitim ate re a sons for giving little we i ght to thela

y witne s s te s tim ony . AFFIRM E D.

4