NOE RAQUINIO V. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, No. 20-16114 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 20 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOE KIM RAQUINIO, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-16114 D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00450-JMS-WRP v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. 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). 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 20-16114
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
