FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 23, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 57 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :1 0- cv -0 11 49 -GAP-DAB
CARLOS BELLO, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us COMM ISSI ONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen dant -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 23 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Carl os Bel lo ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s co m pl ai ntsee ki ng jud ic ia l re vi ew of

th e Co m m is si on er o f So ci al Secu rit y ’s (“ Co m m is si on er”) de ci si on no t t o re op enBel lo ’s cla im forsu rv iv in g c hi ld ’s in su ran ce b en efi ts (“ CIB” ). Afterrev ie w, we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND FACTS A. 19 71 Appli ca tio n fo r CIB App el lantBel lo is th e ch il d o f Luc iaSan ch ez, b orn i n P ue rto Ric o, an d Carl os E. Bell o, a c it iz enof t he Dom in ic anRep ub li c. In19 67 , th e p aren ts m etin Pu ert o R ic o. In19 69 , th e p aren ts an d the ir i nf an t d au gh te r m ov edto th e Bro nx , New York . In Au gu st19 70 , two m on th s b efo re Ap pe ll an t Be ll o was bo rn , Bel lo ’s fathe r di ed . Bell o’s m ot he r m ov edto th e Dom in ic anRep ub li c. On Oct ob er 2 1, 1 97 0, Ap pe ll an t Be ll o was bo rninth e Dom in ic anRep ub li c. On Fe brua ry

16 , 19 71 , Bel lo ’s m ot he r returne d t o the Uni te d S ta te s wi th Bel lo ’s si st er, l eav in g B el lo inth e car e o f rel at iv es inth e Dom in ic anRep ub li c. InJu ly 197 1, Be ll o’s m othe r ap pl ie d fo r CIB on be ha lf o f App el lantBel lo
an d h is si st er. The So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on (“ SSA”) d et erm in edth at App el lantBel lo was e li gi bl e fo r CIB be ne fit s, b utth atth os e b en efi ts were s ub ject to su sp en si on , pu rs ua ntto th e al ie n n on -p aym en t p ro vi si on of t he So ci al Secu rit y Act ( “ th e Act ”), 4 2 U.S.C. § 40 2( t). Un de r th e al ie n n on -p aym en t p ro vi si on , 2be ne fit s ca nn otbe pa idto anin di vi du al who is no t a U.S. ci ti zenif tha t i nd iv idua l

“ is ou ts id e th e Uni te d S ta te s” forsi x c on se cuti ve cal en da r m on th s. See 42 U.S.C. § 4 02 (t) (1 ). Bel lo ’s m ot he r di d n otap pe al th e d en ia l o f th e CIB ap pl ic at io n. 1 On Se pt em

be r 15 , 19 80 , Bel lo m ov edto th e Uni te d S ta te s t o l iv e wit h h is
m ot he r an d s is te r. Fro m

Octo be r 19 80 un ti l Oct ob er 1 98 8, wh enBel lo tu rn ed18 , he rece iv edCIB b en efi ts . B. Bel lo ’s 20 02 Lett er to SSA Reque st in g Ret ro ac tiv e Ben efi ts On Dec em

be r 6, 2 00 2, Be ll o re cei ve d alet te r fro m th e SSA s ta ti ng th athe
was eli gi bl e fo r CIB be gi nn in g i n Oct ob er 1 97 0 u nt il he tu rn ed18 inOcto be r 19 88 . In a Dec em

be r 11 , 20 02 let te r, Bel lo advi se d the SSA th athe ha d n ot
rece iv edbe ne fit s b etweenOcto be r 19 70 an d Oct ob er 1 98 0, an d re qu es te d tha t th os e b en efi ts be pa idretro act iv el y . Inres po ns e, th e SSA s en t Be ll o aDecem be r 12 , 20 02 let te r ex pl ai ni ng th at he di d n otrece iv e b en efi ts du rin g tha t t en -y ear p eri odbe cau se he was n ota U.S. ci ti zenan d was no t l iv in g i n the Uni te d S ta te s atth e ti m e. Bel lo do es no t d is pu te th athe was i n the Dom in ic anRep ub li c dur in g the ten -y ear p eri od
.
Be cause the SSA destroyed B ello’s 1971 file a s part of its re cord ma nag ement policy , his 1 1971 CI B a

pplication and the SSA’s dec ision are not in the re cord. H oweve r, the pa rties do not dispute that the SSA denied Be llo’s 1971 application pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 402(t), and B ello does not contend his mother a ppeale d that decision or r equeste d a hea ringbefor e an Administrative L aw Judge
. 3Ina Decem be r 17 , 20 02 let te r, Bel lo advi se d the SSA th athe infactwas a U.S. cit iz en . Bell o s ub m it te d d oc um en ta ti on , in cl ud in g h is Octo be r 19 80 U.S. pa ss po rt app li cat io n a ndhi s m ot he r’s bi rthcert ifi cat e, sh owi ng th at , eve n tho ug h he was b orn i n the Dom in ic anRep ub li c, hi s m ot he r was actua ll y bo rninPu ert o Ri co , andth us he was aU.S. cit iz en . On Ju ne 3, 2 00 3, Be ll o p ro vi de d the SSA with a n a ffi da vi t fr om

Bel lo ’s m ot he r co nf

irming he r ci ti zen sh ip an d o th er fa ct s. InOcto be r 20 05 , an S SA di st ric t m an ag er d et erm in edth atth e 1 97 1 d eci si on ab ou t Be ll o’s CI B b en efi ts co ul d n otbe reo pe ne d. The SS A fou ndth atBel lo ’s 2 be ne fit s wer e d en ie d i n 1 97 1 b ecau se Bel lo “ was bo rninth e Dom in ic anRep ub li c an d h is m ot he r pr es en te d n o p ro of of US c it iz en sh ip ” atth atti m e. W ith B el lo be in g ano n- U.S. cit iz enres id in g o ut si de th e Uni te d S ta te s i n 1 97 1, Be ll o’s CI B be ne fit s co ul d n otbe pa idun de r th e al ie n n on -p aym en t p ro vi si on . In No ve m be r 20 05 , th e App eal s C ounc il di sm is se d B el lo ’s reque stforreco ns id erat io n. C. 20 07 Reques t fo r Hea ri ng InJan uary

20 06 , Bel lo wrot e a l et te r to th e App eal s C ou nc il ask in g fo r furth er re vi ew of

hi s 2 00 2 l et te r reque stto reo pe n o r fo r rem an d fo r
Although c opies of the 2002 c orre spondence betwee n the SSA and Be llo are not in the 2 rec ord, the pa

rties agree about the conte nts of the cor responde nce. It appea

rs B ello did not file a formal r equest for

reope ning of

the 1971 dec ision. However , later on the SSA appare ntly construed B ello’s ea

rlier 2002 c orre spondence as a r equest to re open. 4reco ns id erat io n. InMarc h 2 00 6, the SSA d is m is se d B el lo ’s reco ns id erat io n

reque st . In Ap ril 20 07 , Bel lo sen t a l ette r fo rm al ly requ es ti ng a he ari ng on hi s reque stto reo pe n. On Se pt em

be r 10 , 20 08 , an Ad min is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e (“ ALJ”) di sm is se d Bel lo ’s reque stwitho utho ld in g ahe ari ng . The ALJ c on cl ud edth atBel lo di d n ot ha ve a ri gh t t o ahe ari ng be cau se , pu rs ua ntto 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.9 03 ( l), th e SSA’s de ni al of B el lo ’s let te r reque stforreo pe ni ng was “ no t an in it ia l d et erm in at io n gi vi ng th e cl ai m an t ap pe al rig ht s, s o areco ns id eredde te rm in at io n was ne ve r m ad e.” The ALJ co nc lu de d tha t “ reo pe ni ng at a ny tim e d oe s n otap pl y ” b ecau se : (1 ) th e rec or d fa il edto sh ow tha t Be ll o’s m ot he r ap pe al edor p ro vi de d a dd it io na l
ev id en ce t o c orrectth e 1 97 1 d et erm in at io n; an d (2 ) Bel lo di d n otpre se nthi s ev id en ce o f U.S. cit iz en sh ip un ti l 1 98 0. Th e ALJ o pi ne d—rep eat in g a n e arl ie r adm on it io n tha t the di sc us si on of t he is su e was “ on ly for o pi ni on pu rp os es ”—t ha t th ere was no erro r on th e fac e o f th e ev id en ce ex is ti ng at t he ti m e o f th e in it ia l 19 71 de te rm in at io n. On J un e 4 , 20 10 , th e App eal s C ounc il de ni edrev ie w, agr eei ng with the ALJ th at“ th e d en ia l o f a reque stforreo pe ni ng do es no t co ns ti tu te anin it ia l de te rm in at io n a nddo es no t co nv ey adm in is tra ti ve an d/ orjud ic ia l ap pe ll at e ri gh ts (2 0 C FR 4 04 .90 3( l) a nd20 CFR 4 04 .93 0) .” 5D. Dis tri ct Co urt Pro ceed in gs

Bel lo ’s com

pl ai ntsee ks jud ic ia l re vi ew of th e Co m mis si on er’s d eci si on an d a ret ro act iv e awardof b en efi ts . The Co m mis si on er fi le d am ot io n t o d is m is s Bel lo ’s com

pl ai ntpu rs ua ntto Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (1 ). The Co m m is si on er ar gu ed , in te r al ia , th atth e d is tri ctco urt l ack edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on un de r 42 U.S.C. § 4 05 (g ) be cau se Bel lo ha d n otob ta in eda fi na l de ci si on m ad e aft er a h eari ng . Ina rep ort an d re co m

m en da ti on (“ R&R ”), a m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d gr an ti ng th e Co m

mis si on er’s m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r la ck of s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Overrul in g B el lo ’s ob jecti on s, the di st ric t co urt ad op te d the R&R
an d d is m is se d B el lo ’s com pl ai nt . Bell o fi le d thi s ap pe al
. II . DISCUSSI ON A di st ric t co urt’s jur is di ct io n t o re vi ew cl ai m s ar is in g u nd er the So ci al Secu rit y Act i s l im it edby 42 U.S.C. § 40 5( g) , whi chpe rm it s re vi ew on ly “ aft er an y fin al de ci si on of t he Co m mis si on er o f So ci al Secu rit y m ad e aft er a h eari ng .” 42 U.S.C. § 4 05 (g ); C as h v . Barn ha rt, 3 27 F.3d12 52 , 12 55 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). The Act d oe s n otde fin e “ fin al de ci si on ,” in st eadleavi ng itto th e Co m m is si on er t o gi ve m ean in g t o tha t t erm th ro ug h re gu la ti on s. Si m s v . Apfe l, 5 30 U.S. 10 3, 1 06 , 12 0 S . Ct. 2 08 0, 2 08 3 (2 00 0) ; s ee al so 42 U.S.C. § 4 05 (a). Un de r th e reg ul at io ns , 6a fi na l d eci si onfor§ 4 05 (g ) pu rp os es is anin it ia l d et erm in at io n tha t a c la im an t

ha s p ur su edth ro ug h a ll st ep s o f th e adm in is tra ti ve rev ie w pro ces s, i nc lu di ng an in it ia l d et erm in at io n, a r eco ns id erat io n d et erm in at io n, a h eari ng de ci si on by an ALJ an d d is cret io na ry

rev ie w by th e App eal s C ou nc il . 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.9 00 (a)( 1)
- (5 ); s ee al so W ei nb erg er v . Sal fi, 4 22 U.S. 74 9, 7 65 , 95 S. Ct. 2 45 7, 2 46 6- 67 (1 97 5) (ex pl ai ni ng th e reg ul at io ns “ sp eci fy th atth e fi na li ty requ ire d fo r jud ic ia l
rev ie w is ach ie ve d o nl y

aft er the furth er s te ps of ahe ari ng be fo re an adm in is tra ti ve law ju dg e an d, p os si bl y , con si de rat io n b y th e App eal s C ou nc il ”). The de ni al of areque stto reo pe n apri orfin al an d b in di ng de te rm in at io n, ho wev er, i s n otanin it ia l d et erm in at io n a ndis no t s ub ject t o the adm in is tra ti ve rev ie w pro ces s. 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .90 3( l); C al ifa no v. Sand ers , 43 0 U.S. 9 9, 1 08 , 97 S.Ct . 98 0, 9 86 (19 77 ); C as h, 3 27 F.3dat 1 25 6; Blo od swo rth v. Heck le r, 70 3 F .2d 12 33 , 12 38 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). There fo re, a d en ia l o f a reque stto reo pe n i s n ota 3

“ fin al de ci si on . . . m ad e aft er a h eari ng ” und er § 40 5( g) . Cali fan o, 4 30 U.S. at 10 8- 09 , 97 S. Ct. at98 6; Cas h, 3 27 F.3dat 1 25 6. As su ch , fed eral co urts lac k
subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w a de ni al of areque stto reo pe n e xc ep t wh ere : We find no merit to Be llo’s argument that the Appea ls Council’s denial of a r equest to 3 reope n is subject to judicial reviewunder B loodsworth. As the district court c orre ctly pointed out, Bloodsworth involved a denial of r eview r ather

than a de nial of a r equest to re open and thus is inapposite. See B loodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1238. Furthe rmore, in B loodsworth, this Court expli citly distinguished the de nial of a r equest for revie w, which may

be subjec t to judicial revie w, and the de nial of a r equest to re open, which is pre cluded f rom judicial revie w. I d. 7(1 ) th e cl ai m an t ra is es a co lo rab le co ns ti tu ti on al cla im , or (2 ) th e Co m m is si on er d e fact o re op en s an d re co ns id ers th e m eri ts of t he pri oradm in is tra ti ve de te rm in at io n orde ci si on . See Ca li fan o, 4 30 U.S. at 1 08 -0 9, 9 7 S . Ct. at98 6; Cas h, 3 27 F.3dat 12 56
. 4 Here, Be ll o’s co m

pl ai ntsee ks jud ic ia l re vi ew of th e Co m m is si on er’s d en ia l of hi s Dec em

be r 20 02 reque stto reo pe n the 19 71 de ci si on ab ou t h is CIB b en efi ts . Ord in ari ly, th e d is tri ctco urt wo ul d l acksubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w su ch a d en ia l. Bel lo co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt h as subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on he re be cau se th e Co m

m is si on er d e fac to reo pe ne d h is 19 71 CIB d et erm in at io n b y rev ie win g i t o n the m eri ts . 5 W e co nc lu de th atth e Co m m is si on er d idno t d e fac to reo pe n the 19 71 de ci si on ab ou t Be ll o’s CI B b en efi ts . Gener al ly, a fi na l d eci si on by the Secr et ary wil l b e d eem edreo pe ne d i f itis “ reco ns id eredon th e m eri ts to an y ex te ntan d a t
an y adm in is tra ti ve lev el .” Ch erry v. Heck le r, 76 0 F .2d11 86 , 11 89 (11 th Cir
.

We reviewde novo a district c ourt’s dete rmination that it lacks subject matter 4 jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g ). Cash v. B arnha rt, 327 F.3d 1252, 1255 n.4 ( 11th Cir. 2003). In the district court, B ello also argued that his complaint raise d a color able dueproce ss

5 claim. Howe ver, B ello does not raise that argument on appea l and thus has aba ndoned it. Cunningham v. Dist. Attorney ’s Off ice f or Esca mbia Cnty , 592 F.3d 1237, 1254 n.9 ( 11th Cir. 2010) (e x plaining that an appe llant waives a ny challeng e to the dismissal of a cla im by not raisingit in his appea l brief)
. 819 85 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . Purs ua ntto 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.9 88 , a pr io r

de ci si on m ay

be reo pe ne d a t an y

ti m e if itis “ fu ll y

or p art ia ll y

un fav or ab le to a pa rty, buton ly to co rrec t cl eri cal erro r oranerro r th atap pe ars on th e fac e o f th e ev id en ce tha t was co ns id eredwhen th e d et erm in at io n o r de ci si on was m ad e.” 2 0 C.F.R. § 40 4.9 88 (c)( 8) . The ALJ m us t b e al lo wedso m e le eway to ev al ua te ho w ne wly pr es en te d e vi de nc e rel at es ba ckto th e p rio r ap pl ic at io n i n o rd er t o de te rm in e whe th er t o re op enth e cas e und er 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .98 8, wi th ou t the
ev al ua ti onam ou nt in g t o ade fact o re op en in g o f th e m eri ts . Pass op ul os v. Su ll iv an , 97 6 F .2d64 2, 6 46 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ); B ro wn v . Sul li van, 9 21 F.2d12 33 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ); C he rry , 76 0 F .2dat 1 18 9. As t o the SSA’s Decem

be r 6, 2 00 2 l ette r in fo rm in g B el lo th athe was

“ el ig ib le ” fo r be ne fit s, Be ll o c on ced es th atth e in it ia l l et te r on ly “be g[ an ] th e pr oc es s o f reo pe ni ng .” Howev er, the SSA ex pl ai ne d i n afol lo w-up l et te r se ntto Bel lo a weeklat er tha t, al th ou ghBel lo was “ el ig ib le ” fo r be ne fit s, h is be ne fit s were d en ie d due to th e al ie n s us pe ns io n ru le s, wh ic h i nd ic at es th atth e fi rs t l et te r was no t a r eo pe ni ng . Und er o urpre ced en t, a re op en in g re qu ire s an actua l re co ns id erat io n o f th e m eri ts , no t ju stanin te ntto reco ns id er. See Cas h, 3 27 F.3dat 1 25 6- 57 (no ti ng th at , “ in co nt ras t, wh enou r pr eced en t h as co nc lu de d tha t a r eo pe ni ng oc cu rred , th e 9cas e in vo lv edanactua l re op en in g o f a p rio r cl ai m by eith er the ALJ o r th e App eal s C ou nc il ”); see als o Wol fe v . Cha te r, 86 F.3d10 72 , 10 78 -7 9 (1 1t h C ir. 19 96 ) (reo pe ni ng oc cu rredwhen ALJ, co ns id eri ng th irdap pl ic at io n fo r be ne fit s, reex am in edm eri ts of d et erm in at io n o n fi rs t an d s eco ndap pl ic at io n c on cern in g cl ai m an t’s educ at io na l l ev el ); M aco n v . Sul li va n, 9 29 F.2d15 24 , 15 29 (11 th Cir
. 19 91 ) (reo pe ni ng oc cu rredwhen App eal s C ou nc il reex am in edm eri ts of de te rm in at io n o n c la im an ts ’ fir stap pl ic at io n c on cern in g the ir s ta tu s as su rv iv in g ch il dr enaft er ALJ d en ie d re qu es t fo r a h eari ng on ba si s o f res jud ic at a). Add it io na ll y , a de fact o re op en in g d oe s n otoc cu r whi le th e SSA i s m erel y ev al ua ti ng ne wly pr of

fere d e vi de nc e to de te rm in e whe th er t o re op enth e cas e. See Cas h, 3 27 F.3dat 1 25 6- 57 ; Br own , 92 1 F .2dat 1 23 7. Atm os t, the SSA’s Decem be r 6, 2 00 2 l et te r was a pr ecu rs orto th is ev al ua ti on pro ces s. Itwas n ot
un ti l Be ll o re qu es te d b en efi ts an d s ub m it te d d oc um en ta ti on insupp ort o f hi s 2 00 2 reque st , whi chth e SSA ap pa ren tl y co ns tru edas am ot io n t o re op en , th atth e SSA reque st edfurth er i nf

orm at io n fr om

Bel lo to ev al ua te hi s re qu es t t o re op en . And , th e le tt ers Bel lo sen t the SSA reque st eda de ci si on as t o wh ethe r itwou ldreo pe n hi s ca se , refl ect in g tha t n ei th er Be ll o n orth e SSA v ie wedth e cas e as reo pe ne d. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in fin di ng th atth e Dece m be r 6, 2 00 2 le tt er was no t a d e fac to reo pe ni ng of the 19 71 de ni al of B el lo ’s CIB b en efi ts . 10Lik ewis e, th e ALJ’s Sep te m be r 10 , 20 08 ord er d is m is si ng Bel lo ’s reque st fo r a h eari ng was n ota de fact o re op en in g. Th e ALJ’s d is m is sa l o rd er fo un d o nl y th atBel lo di d n othave a ri gh t t o re qu es t a h eari ng be fo re an ALJ und er the adm in is tra ti ve reg ul at io ns . Thatfin di ng was b as edex cl us iv el y on th e fac t tha t the SSA h adde ni edBel lo ’s reque stto reo pe n andno t o n the m eri ts of t he 19 71 de ci si on . Afte r th e ALJ fo un d tha t Be ll o d idno t h av e a ri gh t t o re qu es t a h eari ng , th e ALJ d idex pr es s h is “ op in io n” as t o wh ethe r th ere was anerro r on th e fac e o f th e 19 71 ev id en ce t o warran t a r eo pe ni ng an d d iddi sc us s B el lo ’s new ev id en ce. Howev er, the ALJ ex pl ic it ly not edbo th be fo re an d a fte r th e o pi ni onth athi s di sc us si on of t hi s i ss ue was “ on ly for o pi ni on pu rp os es .” Furth erm or e, th e ALJ’s di sc us si on “ fo r op in io n p ur po se s o nl y ” ev al ua te d o nl y whethe r reo pe ni ng m ig ht be warran te d, wh ic h wo ul d n otco ns ti tu te a reo pe ni ng inan y ev en t. See 20 C.F.R. § 4 04 .98 8; Pas so pu lo s, 9 76 F.2dat 6 46 . Fin al ly, th e App eal s C ou nc il ’s
subs eque ntde ni al of r ev ie w agr eedon ly w ith the ALJ’s fi nd in g tha t Be ll o was no t
en ti tl edto a he ari ng . Und er the se cir cum st an ces , th e ALJ’s d is m is sa l d idno t
co ns ti tu te a de fact o re op en in g o f th e in it ia l 1 97 1 d eci si on . Insu m , Bel lo ’s com

pl ai ntdo es no t fa ll withi n a n e xc ep ti on to th e g en eral
ru le pre cl ud in g ju di ci al rev ie w of the Co m m is si on er’s ref

us al s t o re op en . 11Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in fin di ng th atitlac ke d s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e Co m m is si on er’s d eci si on . 6 AFFIRMED.

Be cause the district court lac ked subjec t matter jurisdiction, Be llo’s claim that he wa s 6 entitled to CI B be tween O ctober 1970 and Oc tober 1980 is not properly befor e us, and w e do not consider it. 12