T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H on orabl e I rm a E . G on za l ez , D i stri ctJudg e f or the U . S . D i stri ct ** * C ourtf orS outhe rn C a l i f

orni a , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A G A BY Y O U SSEF, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M I C H A E L J . A S T R U E , C om m i s s i one rof S oc i a l S e c ur i tyA dm i ni s tr a t i on, D ef

endant -A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 55410 D . C . N o . C V 1 0 -0 0 2 2 4 -C JC ( VB K) ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C orm a c J . C a rne y , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r5, 2012 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia Be f o r e : D. W . NELS ON a n dO’ SC AN NLAI N, Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n dGO NZALEZ , D i stri ctJudg e. *** 

# FI LED NO V 20 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSA p p ellan t A g ab y Y o u ss ef (“A p p ellan t”) ap p ea ls th e D istrict C o u rt’s di sm i ss al of her a ct i on brou gh tagai nstM i chae l J. A strue i n h i s c apac i ty a s C om m i s s i one rof

S oc i a l S e c ur i tyA dm i ni s tr a t i on. A ppe l l a ntf i l e d a n appl i c a t i on for S up pl em ent al S ec uri ty I ncom e ( “ S S I” ) benefi t s und erT i t l e X V I of the S oci al S e c u r ityA c t in M a r c h 2 0 0 0 a n da ls o s o u g h t r e o p e n in g o f tw o p r io ru n f

a v o r ab le de c i s i ons on S S I appl i c a t i ons s he ha d f i l e d i n 1993 a nd 1997. T he A dm i ni s tr a t i ve L a w J udge ul t i m a t e l yi s s ue d af ul l yf a vor abl e de c i s i on on he rM a r c h 2000 ap p lic a tio n , b u t d e n ie dr e o p e n in g o f h e r1 9 9 3 a n d1 9 9 7 S S I ap p lic a tio n s . A p p e lla n t ap p e a le dth e A d m in is tr a tiv e L a w J u d g e ’s d e n ia l to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt, w hi c h di s m i s s e d he rc l a i m f oral a c k of

s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on. J u d ic ia l r e v ie w o f

th e d e c is io n s o f

th e C o m m is s io n e ro f

S o c ia l S e c u r ity A d m in is tr a tio n is lim ite dto f in a l d e c is io n s . 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 ( g ) ; se e Schw eike r v . Chi l i ck y , 48 7 U . S . 41 2, 42 4 (19 88 ). “ A deci si on no tt o reopen a pri or, fi nal be ne f i t s de c i s i on i s di s c r e t i ona rya nd or di na r i l ydoe s notc ons t i tut e af i na l de c i s i on; there fore , i ti s notsubj ec tt o j ud i ci al re vi ew . ” U dd v. M a ssa n a ri , 245 F . 3d 1096, 1 0 9 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . H o w e v e r , ad is tr ic t c o u rt h a s s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n to re vi ew the deni al of a r equestt o reopen i f the deni al i s c hal l enged o n con st i tut i on al g r o u n d s . Ca l i

f a n o v. Sa n ders , 4 3 0 U .S . 9 9 , 1 0 7 - 0 9 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . W e h a v e r e c o g n iz e dad u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n w h e r e th e c la im a n t p r e s e n ts evi dence thatm ent al i ncapaci ty pre vent ed her f rom re qu es t i ng t i m el y r evi ew of ana dm i ni s tr a t i ve a c t i on a nd s he ha d no one l e ga l l yr e s pons i bl e f orpr os e c ut i ng the c la im o n h e rb e h a lf

. U dd , 245 F . 3d 1099- 1100. W e ha ve a l s o r e c ogni z e d a c ol or abl e c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m w he r e the c l a i m a ntc a n s how tha tm e nt a l i m pa i rm e nt p r e v e n te dh e rf

r o m u n d e r s ta n d in g h o w to c o n te s t th e d e n ia l o f b e n e f its . Klem m v. A s tr ue , 5 4 3 F .3 d1 1 3 9 , 1 1 4 4 - 4 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e f in dth a t A p p e lla n t is u n ab le to r a is e ac o lo r ab le c o n s titu tio n a l c la im unde re i the rs t a nda r d be c aus e ( 1) s he w a s a s s i s t e d byal e ga l r e pr e s e nt a t i ve w ho prosec ut ed the 19 93 and 1 99 7 cl ai m s on h erbehal f and (2) s he has notshow n that s h e s u f f e r e df r o m am e n ta l im p a irm e n t o rla n g u a g e d e f ic ie n c ys u c h th a t s h e c o u ld n o t u n d e r s ta n dth e r e v ie w p r o c e s s . A c c o r d in g ly , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt p r o p e r ly di sm i ss ed her cl ai m for al ac k o f s ubj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on . B ec ause the D i stri ct C ou rtl ac ked subj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on , w e do n otre ac h A pp el l ant ’ s argum entthat the 1993 a nd 1997 S S I appl i c a t i ons s houl d be r e ope ne d be c aus e the A dm i ni s tr a t i ve L aw Judg es com m i tt ed fr aud b y m i sund er st andi ng and m i si nt erpret i ng l egal st an d ard s. AF F I RME D.