Noe Kim Raquinio v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOE KIM RAQUINIO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-16114
D.C. No.
1:19-cv-00450-JMS-WRP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Noe Kim Raquinio appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of
his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social
Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16114
Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction because Raquinio failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 42
U.S.C. § 405(g); Bass v. Social Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A
claimant’s failure to exhaust the procedures set forth in the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), deprives the district court of jurisdiction.”). The district court did
not err in declining to waive the exhaustion requirement because Raquinio did not
raise a claim that was collateral to his substantive claim of entitlement to
benefits. See Kildare, 325 F.3d at 1082.
We do not address Raquinio’s contentions, raised for the first time on
appeal, that the Social Security Administration violated his right to due process by
declining to entertain his untimely request for reconsideration, refusing to accept
evidence, or deciding his claim without a hearing. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464
F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006).
To the extent that Raquinio requests supplementation of the record (Docket
Entry No. 22), the request is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --