Court Opinion

ID: 9470003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:54:32.52483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:40.421400
License: Public Domain

FARRIS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
But for our decision in Christen v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 439 F.2d 715 (9th Cir.1971), I would agree with the district court.
I agree with the majority that the Secretary’s decision not to reopen Mrs. Singer’s second claim is not a “final decision” open to judicial review. See, e.g., Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107-09, 97 S.Ct. 980, 985-986, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977) (refusal to reopen claims held not reviewable); Davis v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 1982) (refusal to reopen claim and denial on ground of administrative res judicata held not reviewable).
Therefore, whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction depends on whether Mrs. Singer raised a colorable con-*619Due Process stitutional claim under the Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Mrs. Singer argues that the passage of an additional seven years since the denial of her second application entitled her to a new hearing. This argument, in my opinion, is foreclosed by Califano v. Sanders. Mrs. Singer overlooks the fact that the presumption of death requires that the person has been absent from his or her residence “for no apparent reason and has not been heard from for at least seven years.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.721 (1981). Mrs. Singer is able to present only an explained absence from July 4, 1964 to date. The Administrative Law Judge correctly noted that Mrs. Singer has offered no new evidence to rebut the earlier finding that Billy Singer’s absence is consistent with continued life and not unexplained. The added years, then, did not materially alter her application. As in Califano v. Sanders, if Mrs. Singer wanted judicial review, she should have commenced a civil action within sixty days after the final decision rendered on her second application, unless she had new evidence to rebut the earlier finding.
Our prior decision in Christen v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 439 F.2d 715 (9th Cir.1971), apparently rejects this analysis. Christen was “a case of the mysterious disappearance of a husband.” Id. In this case, Mr. Singer did not mysteriously disappear for unexplained reasons. He had a previous record of absences and when he was last seen, he was not in imminent peril. In spite of this, I join the majority since Christen is the law of the circuit.