Carla Betancourt, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of the Social Securityadministration,** Defendant-appellee, 141 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 1998)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Carla Betancourt appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") terminating Betancourt's supplemental security income benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court's summary judgment upholding the Commissioner's denial of benefits. See Hudson v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 433, 434 (9th Cir. 1988). We must affirm if substantial evidence supports the findings of the administrative law judge ("ALJ"). See id.

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that Betancourt and John Brand ("Brand") held themselves out as husband and wife, and were married for purposes of social security benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(d) (2); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1806 & 416.1826(c) (1).

Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ's finding that their combined resources rendered Betancourt ineligible for benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1205. Betancourt's contention, that the accounts Brand established in her name were not excess resources because she did not know about them, lacks merit. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1201(a) (1) (defining resources as assets owned by an individual or spouse which the individual has the right, authority or power to liquidate).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that Betancourt refused to allow the Administration to verify her assets. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1322.¹ 

AFFIRMED.