UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PERIKLI S. Z.,1 Plaintiff, Case No.: 1:20-CV-00812-BAH-RMM v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Perikli S. Z. (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Z.”), appearing pro se, seeks the reversal of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“the Commissioner”) in which an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) suspended Mr. Z.’s Retirement Insurance Benefits (“RIB”) after finding that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) notified the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) that Mr. Z. had been removed2 from the United States. See generally Complaint, ECF No. 1. Mr. Z. contends that the ALJ erroneously determined that Mr. Z. was removed, as opposed to finding that Mr. Z. voluntarily departed from the United States, and that his disability benefits should not have been suspended. Id. at *2. 1 Plaintiff’s name has been partially redacted in keeping with the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States. See Mem. from Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges, Chair, Comm. on Ct. Admin. & Case Mgmt., to Chief Judges of the U.S. Cts. of Appeals, Chief Judges of the U.S. Dist. Cts., Clerks of the U.S. Cts. of Appeals, and Clerks of the U.S. Dist. Cts. (May 1, 2018), available at https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-ap-c-suggestion_cacm_0.pdf. 2 Mr. Z.’s removal from the United States is referred to as both his “deportation” and “removal” throughout the Administrative Record and the parties’ briefing. For consistency and in keeping with the most current terminology, the undersigned will use the term “removal” in this Report and Recommendation, unless quoting specific language in the record or referencing specific documents that include “deportation” in the title. Then-Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell referred this matter to the undersigned for full case management including the preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.3. See Order, ECF No. 5. Pending before the undersigned are Mr. Z.’s Motion for Judgement of Reversal, ECF No. 22, and the Commissioner’s Motion for Judgment of Affirmance, ECF No. 24. Having considered the parties’ submissions3 and the Administrative Record,4 and for the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the Court DENY Mr. Z.’s Motion for Reversal and GRANT the Commissioner’s Motion for Affirmance. BACKGROUND I. Factual and Procedural Background A. Mr. Z.’s Initial Application Mr. Z. applied to the SSA for RIB on November 25, 2008. See AR 76. His application was approved on May 3, 2010, but the Notice of Award stated that his benefits would be suspended beginning in April 2010 because he had been removed from the United States. See AR 108. Mr. Z. filed a request for a hearing in which he raised two claims. See AR 114–15. First, he claimed that he voluntarily departed from the United States, and was not removed, and that his benefits should not have been suspended (“removal issue”). Id. Second, he challenged the calculation of the amount of benefits he was awarded (“benefit calculation issue”). …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals