NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AZIZEH RASHIDI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-55121 

D.C. No. 3:20-cv-02016-MDD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Mitchell D. Dembin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 5, 2022

Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Azizeh Rashidi appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner 

of Social Security’s partial denial of her application for supplemental security 

income. This Court reviews the district court’s decision de novo and, absent legal 

error, we will set aside the agency’s denial of benefits only if the decision was not 

supported by substantial evidence. Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1048 (9th Cir. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

DEC 28 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

2017). We affirm. 

1. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not err under our precedents

when he concluded that the Vocational Expert’s (“VE”) testimony was reliable and 

constituted substantial evidence to support a finding that significant numbers of 

jobs in the national economy were available to Rashidi.

“Due to their specialized knowledge, the [Social Security Administration]

recognizes VEs as ‘reliable sources of occupational information in the evaluation 

of disability claims.’” Kilpatrick v. Kijakazi, 35 F.4th 1187, 1192 (9th Cir. 2022) 

(quoting Social Security Ruling, SSR 00-4p, 65 Fed. Reg. 75760 (2000)). “[E]ven 

without significant testing, a factfinder may conclude that [VE] testimony has 

sufficient indicia of reliability to support a conclusion about whether an applicant 

could find work.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1157 (2019).

Rashidi argues that the VE’s testimony was insufficient because, when 

Rashidi’s counsel asked her on cross-examination to explain how she estimated job 

numbers, the VE was unable to identify a reliable methodology. For example, the 

VE was unable clearly to list the names of the sources for the numbers she cited;

she just referred to the “DOT” (the Dictionary of Occupational Titles), the “US 

Bureau of Labor Statistics,” and “Occupational Employment Quarterly” as sources 

she generally used. As to her methodology for calculating the numbers, the VE’s 

answers were vague and not substantive. She stated that “we . . . refer to” these 
3 

publications, “do [a] validation of statistics of physical limitations,” “draw the 

interpretations,” and “basically figure out where the numbers come from and 

estimate all that and figure out where and how the three can conclude.” This 

description provides little information as to the specific methods used to derive the 

job number estimates to which she testified.

This Court has held, however, that, absent contrary evidence, a VE’s 

testimony is “‘inherently reliable’” and “sufficient by itself to support an ALJ’s 

step-five finding.” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1160 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting 

Buck, 869 F.3d at 1051). Ford upheld a VE’s testimony even though the expert 

could not identify the specific sources of the job number estimates he gave and 

could only list sources that he generally used, briefly explaining that he “typically 

average[d]” his sources once a year. Id. at 1152–53, 1159–60. Thus, though an 

“applicant may probe the strength of testimony by asking an expert about (for 

example) her sources and methods” to assess whether the testimony is “feeble” or 

“contradicted,” Biestek, 139 S. Ct. at 1155–56, under Ford, the cursory nature of 

the VE’s explanation of her methodology, alone, did not render her testimony 

unreliable.

At the same time, “VE testimony is not incontestable.” Buck, 869 F.3d at

1051. For example, a claimant may challenge a VE’s qualifications or 

trustworthiness. See Ford, 950 F.3d at 1159. But Rashidi does not challenge the 
4 

VE’s testimony on these grounds. “Our review of an ALJ’s fact-finding for 

substantial evidence is deferential, and ‘[t]he threshold for such evidentiary 

sufficiency is not high.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Biestek, 139 S. Ct. at 

1154). The ALJ expressly overruled Rashidi’s objection to the VE’s testimony, 

based on the VE’s “professional knowledge and experience,” and after 

“determin[ing] that the vocational expert’s testimony [wa]s consistent with the 

information contained in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.” The ALJ did not 

err in concluding that the VE’s testimony was reliable. 

2. Ford recognizes that a VE’s otherwise qualified and trustworthy

testimony can be challenged if contradicted by evidence in the record. 950 F.3d at 

1159. When an ALJ is confronted with conflicting evidence from the VE and the 

claimant regarding the number of jobs available to the claimant, the ALJ must 

address and resolve that conflict. Buck, 869 F.3d at 1051–52. 

Rashidi submitted evidence alleged to contradict the VE’s estimated 

numbers for the jobs the VE identified as available to Rashidi. However, “an ALJ 

need only resolve job-number inconsistencies if the ‘competing job numbers . . . 

constitute significant probative evidence.’” White v. Kijakazi, 44 F.4th 828, 836 

(9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Kilpatrick, 35 F.4th at 1194). The ALJ did not err when he 

overruled Rashidi’s objections to the VE’s testimony without expressly addressing 

Rashidi’s rebuttal evidence, because the evidence was not significant or probative. 
5 

Rashidi sought to contradict the VE’s job-numbers testimony through a posthearing brief arguing that rebuttal evidence established that the number of jobs 

available to Rashidi is far fewer than the VE represented.1 To support her 

assertions, Rashidi submitted nearly 500 pages of data, most of which appear to be 

from a source called “Occu Collect.” The pages cite to government publications, 

including some from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but the citations are generic, 

and the pages provide no explanation for how Occu Collect’s information is 

derived from those publications. 

Rashidi stated in her post-hearing brief to the ALJ and in her briefs before 

this Court that her conveyer bakery worker and iron zipper job numbers were 

obtained using Job Browser Pro, a source that has been recognized as a reliable 

source of job-number estimates.

2 But the pages on which that information is found

in the evidence Rashidi submitted do not provide any indication that they were 

generated by Job Browser Pro. The pages also do not explain where the specific 

estimated numbers come from, how they were derived, or by whom. For example, 

1 Rashidi also argued, and the Commissioner concedes, that the VE erroneously 

testified that shipping-and-receiving weigher was a job available to Rashidi. 

However, if the rest of the VE’s testimony is reliable, that error was harmless. The 

VE’s testimony regarding the numbers of conveyor bakery worker and iron zipper 

jobs still would constitute a significant amount of work in the national economy. 

See Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519, 528–29 (9th Cir. 2014).

2

Job Browser Pro is a software widely used by VEs that collects and analyzes 

Bureau of Labor Statistics data. See White, 44 F.4th at 831–33; see also, e.g., 

Purdy v. Berryhill, 887 F.3d 7, 14–17 (1st Cir. 2018).
6 

Rashidi asserts that, based on one page of the 500 submitted, for which she did not 

provide a pincite in her post-hearing brief, only 428 conveyor bakery worker jobs 

exist in the United States. But she provided no evidence explaining what the low 

estimate that appears on that page signifies—for example, the number of total jobs

nationwide, or the number of vacant jobs available.

Because Rashidi’s rebuttal evidence did not constitute significant probative 

evidence, the ALJ was not obliged expressly to consider and resolve the conflicting 

job-numbers evidence.

AFFIRMED.