Okocha v. Berryhill
693 F. App'x 37
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant Basil Okocha, pro se, appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s determination that he was no longer eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) because of his immigration status.
- Okocha obtained political asylum in February 2002; asylum recipients are generally eligible for SSI for seven years after the grant, with an additional two years under a 2008 extension (total nine years).
- The Social Security Administration terminated Okocha’s SSI in March 2011, which is nine years after his 2002 asylum grant.
- Okocha argued he fit exceptions that would preserve SSI eligibility, chiefly relying on 8 U.S.C. § 1612(a)(2)(F)(i) (residence on August 22, 1996 exception for disabled/blind aliens) and citing food-stamp-related provisions.
- The ALJ found Okocha did not qualify for any exception; the magistrate judge granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the district court’s judgment was appealed to this Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Okocha remained eligible for SSI after the statutory asylum-related period elapsed | Okocha asserted he qualified for an exception (alleging disability and other statutory exceptions) that would continue SSI beyond nine years | The Commissioner argued Okocha’s asylum-based SSI eligibility expired in 2011 and he did not meet any statutory exception (e.g., he did not reside in U.S. on Aug 22, 1996) | Court held Okocha was not eligible; substantial evidence supported termination because he did not meet any exception |
| Whether § 1612(a)(2)(F)(i) applied to Okocha | Okocha claimed the § 1612(a)(2)(F)(i) exception should apply to him | Commissioner noted § 1612(a)(2)(F)(i) requires residence in the U.S. on Aug 22, 1996; Okocha arrived in 2001 | Court held § 1612(a)(2)(F)(i) did not apply because Okocha arrived after the relevant date |
| Whether food-stamp receipt preserves SSI eligibility under § 1612(a)(2)(F)(ii) | Okocha pointed to his receipt of food stamps as a basis to continue SSI | Commissioner explained § 1612(a)(2)(F)(ii) concerns eligibility to receive food stamps when already receiving disability benefits; it does not extend SSI eligibility | Court rejected this argument as a misreading of § 1612(a)(2)(F)(ii) |
| Whether the ALJ’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence | Okocha disputed the ALJ’s application of the immigration-benefits rules to his facts | Commissioner maintained the ALJ correctly applied the statutory scheme and factual record | Court affirmed: under the substantial evidence standard, the ALJ’s findings stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard of review for district court judgment on the pleadings and review of administrative record for substantial evidence)
- Brault v. Social Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 683 F.3d 443 (2d Cir. 2012) (explaining the substantial-evidence standard and deference to ALJ factfinding)