FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVEN T. AHEARN, No. 19-35774 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 3:18-cv-05699-MLP ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social OPINION Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Michelle L. Peterson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted October 6, 2020* Seattle, Washington Filed February 17, 2021 Before: Susan P. Graber and William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judges, and Nancy D. Freudenthal,** District Judge. Opinion by Judge W. Fletcher * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ** The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation. 2 AHEARN V. SAUL SUMMARY*** Social Security The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of claimant’s application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the Social Security Act. The panel rejected the government’s description of the standard of review for Social Security cases. Citing I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992), an immigration case, the government asserted that a reviewing court could set aside an ALJ’s conclusion in an SSI case only if the record compelled a contrary conclusion. The panel held that Elias- Zacarias did not describe the standard of review in an SSI case. The panel held that in an SSI case, the court reviews the decision of the ALJ for substantial evidence. If substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s decision, the court must defer to the ALJ. In the absence of substantial evidence, however, the court must set aside the ALJ’s decision. The court is not restricted to setting aside the ALJ’s decision only when the evidence in the record compelled a contrary conclusion. Considering the record as a whole, the panel held that the ALJ’s disability determination was supported by substantial evidence. *** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. AHEARN V. SAUL 3 COUNSEL Eitan Kassel Yanich, Law Office of Eitan Kassel Yanich PLLC, Olympia, Washington, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Matthew W. Pile, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle Region X; Katherine Watson, Assistant Regional Counsel; Kerry Jane Keefe, Assistant United States Attorney; Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, Washington; for Defendant-Appellee. OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Claimant Steven Ahearn seeks disability benefits under the federal Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) program. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied benefits, and the district court affirmed. We affirm in turn. There is nothing unusual about the substance of this appeal that merits a published opinion. We are publishing our decision to draw attention to the government’s incorrect description, in its briefs in this and in other recent SSI cases, of the standard of review. I. Standard of Review Citing I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992), an immigration case, the government insists that a reviewing court can set aside an ALJ’s conclusion in an SSI case ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals