N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M AR IA HASEEB ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 16-15226 D.C . No. 3:15-c v-03931-LB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia La ure l D. B e e le r, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 18, 2017 **
B e fore : D.W . NELSON, TR OTT, a nd OW ENS, C i rc uit Judge s. M aria Ha se e b a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dismi ssa l a s untim e ly of he r
c om pla i nt se e king re vie w of the C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity ’ s de n ia l of he r



# F IL ED
MAY22 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a

pplic ation for supplem e nta l se c urity inc om e unde r Title XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. The c om pla int wa s la

te be c a use it wa s file d m o re tha

n sixty -five da

y s a fte r the Appe a ls C ounc il’ s de c ision of M arc h 26, 2015. Se e 42 U.S.C . § 405(g) (se tting forth a sixty -da y sta tute of lim i tations running from the date of a

fina l de c ision of the C om m issione r). C o unting sixty da y s plus fiveda

y s for re c e ipt of theAppe a ls C ounc il’ s de c ision, pursua nt to 20 C .F.R . § 422.210(c ), the c om pla int wa s due by June 1, 2015. Ha se e b, howe ve r, did not file it until August 27, 2015. Ha se e b c onte nds tha

t the Appe a ls C o unc i l’ s de c ision wa s not a fina l de c ision be c a

use he r re que st for a

n e xte n sion of time wa s pe nding, a nd the Appe a ls C ounc il the re fore re ta i ne d jurisdic tion, until Nove m be r 19, 2015. The

Appe a ls C ounc il’ s de c ision whe the r to gra nt a n e xte nsion of time , howe ve r, is disc re tiona ry
and the re fore non-fina l for purpose s of the sixty -day de a d line
. Se e 42 U.S.C
. § 405(g) (providing tha

t c om pla int m ust be file d within sixty da y s “ or within suc h furthe r tim e a s the C om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity m ay a llow” ); K

le m m v Astrue , 543 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th C ir. 2008) (holding tha t ALJ’ s disc re t iona

ry de nia l of a

n untim e l y m otion to re ope n wa s not fina l a nd re vie wa

ble ). The Appe a ls C ounc il’ s August 7, 2015 de

nia l of Ha se e b’ s re que st for re c onside ration a lso did not a m ount to a ne w fina l de c ision of theC om m issione r. Se e Banta v
. Sullivan , 925 F.2d 343,
2344-45 (9th C ir. 1991) (holding tha t Appe a ls C ounc il’ s de nia l of a re que st to
re ope n or va c ate its pre vious de c ision wa s not a ne w fina l de c ision a

nd did not
re sta rt the sixty -day

pe riod for filing a

distric t c ourt a c tion). Ha se e b a lso ha s not e sta

blishe d a c olora ble c la im of a

de nia l of due proc e ss. Se e De x te r v . C olv in , 731 F.3d 977, 980 (9th C i r. 2013). She c onte nds tha t the Appe a ls C ounc il’ s de la

y in de ny ing he r re que st for a n e xte nsion of thesixty -day tim e lim it until a

date we ll a fte r the sixty

da y s ha d e xpire d pre ve nte d he r from tim e ly filing he r c om

pla int be c a

use she re a sona

bly re lie d on the Appe a ls C ounc il’ s ge ne ra l pra c tic e of not ruling until a fte r the de a dline but the n gra nting suc h
re que s ts. The se c irc um sta nc e s do not e sta

blish a c olora ble c la im of the de nia l of a
m e aningful opportunity

to be he ard or to se e k re c onside ration of a n a d ve rse be ne fits de te rm i nation. Se e K le mm , 543 F.3d a

t 1144 (holding tha

t a due proc e ss
c la im is c olora ble if it is not wholly

insubsta ntia l, im m ate ria l, or frivolous); Udd v

. Massanari , 245 F.3d 1096, 1099 (9th C ir. 2001) (holding tha t due proc e ss re quire s that a c la im ant re c e ive m e aningful notic e and a n opportunity

to be he ard be fore he r
c la im for disa bility be ne fits m ay

be de nie d). AFFIRM E D.

3