Sharif Rangrej v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHARIF RANGREJ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-35234
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00483-MHW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Mikel H. Williams, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2015**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and D.W. NELSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Sharif Rangrej appeals pro se the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Rangrej’s application for
FILED
FEB 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
13-35234

-- 1 of 3 --

supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rangrej contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in finding
that Rangrej’s chronic back pain was not disabling. We reject this contention
because, although the record supports the determination that Rangrej’s chronic
back pain caused him mild to moderate limitations, the record supports the
determination that Rangrej’s impairment did not disable him for purposes of
entitlement to Social Security disability benefits. The ALJ reasonably concluded
that Rangrej was not entirely credible; the ALJ reasonably credited the opinions of
the consulting physicians that Rangrej’s chronic back pain was not disabling; and
the ALJ reasonably relied on vocational expert testimony that Rangrej could
perform jobs in the national economy. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,
359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004) (the Commissioner’s findings are upheld if
supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record).
Rangrej contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to
augment the record with three additional items of medical evidence. Contrary to
Rangrej’s contention, there is no convincing record evidence that Rangrej
submitted this additional evidence to the Appeals Council. Because the additional
evidence was not submitted to the agency, the evidence must meet the good cause
13-35234 -2-

-- 2 of 3 --

and materiality requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Mayes v. Massanari, 276
F.3d 453, 462-63 (9th Cir. 2001). Rangrej’s unsupported contention that his
attorney presented the additional evidence to the agency does not establish good
cause. Moreover, the additional evidence is cumulative of the medical evidence
already considered by the agency. Accordingly, the district court properly denied
Rangrej’s motion to augment the record with the additional evidence.
AFFIRMED.
13-35234 -3-

-- 3 of 3 --