Annа Maria JANUARY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 10-30345
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 5, 2010.
929
Summary Calendar.
Contrary to the Dhukas’ assertions, the IJ explained the factors in Nasim‘s demeanor that caused the IJ to question Nasim‘s credibility. To the extent that the Dhukas assert that Nasim‘s hesitancy and lack of emotion may be explained by her shame, they do not explain why she exhibited the same demeanor when explaining why she did not obtain copies of her medical reports showing the medical treatment she received after the assault. Additionally, the IJ was entitled to question Nasim during the proceedings and could seek reasonably available corroborative evidence to support even credible testimony.
Moreover, the adverse credibility finding is supported by other inconsistencies in Nasim‘s testimony, as notеd by the IJ. Nasim asserted that a crowd of 400-500 Hindus attacked her community and assaulted Muslims, but she could not explain how she reached that estimate of the number of attackers and she never spoke to her neighbors to asсertain if any of them suffered injury. Nasim also contended that her rapists called her when she moved to a different town and threatened her, although she could not explain how these individuals could find her in a different community if she did not know who they were and they did not know her identity.
In light of these inconsistencies and contradictions, it is not plain that “no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Wang, 569 F.3d at 538 (internal quotation marks and citation оmitted). The Dhukas’ asylum and withholding claims were all based on persecution arising from the alleged assault against Nasim. Because the credibility determinations of the IJ and BIA withstand review, the decision to deny relief is supported by substantial evidence. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344-45. In light of this ruling, we need not address the alternative finding that Nasim‘s testimony, even if credible, did not establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal.
PETITION DENIED.
Joseph R. Oelkers, III, Esq., Acadiana Legal Service Corp, Lafayettе, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jose Ricardo Hernandez, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, John A. Broadwell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Anna Maria January appeals the district court‘s judgment affirming the Commissioner‘s denial of her application for Social Security disability benefits. We affirm.
I
January filed an apрlication for Social Security disability benefits on account of her back and neck problems. In evaluating a disability claim, the Commissioner conducts a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether (1) the claimant is presently working; (2) the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) the impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the Social Security regulations; (4) the impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5) the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other work.1 While the claimant bears the burden of establishing her disability in the first four steps of the analysis, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that there is other substantial work in the national economy that the claimant can perform.2
After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)—acting for the Commissioner—determined that January was not working and that she suffered from a severe impairment, а disorder of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. After concluding that a finding of disability was not required at step three, the ALJ determined that January‘s residual functional capacity enabled her to perform the full rаnge of light work as defined by Social Security regulations. This finding precluded January from returning to her previous work as a sales associate, which fell in the medium work category. The ALJ
II
Our review is limited to determining whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards and whether the denial is supported by substantial evidence in the record.4 Substantial evidence “is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”5 We may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner.6
January‘s two contentiоns on appeal revolve around the ALJ‘s failure to consider a box ticked by a medical consultant on her residual functional capacity evaluation. The tick mark indicates that she suffers from a nonexertiоnal limit on her work capacity, namely an environmental restriction prohibiting her from working around hazards such as machinery or heights. January first argues that the ALJ‘s failure to mention this nonexertional limitation deprives the residual functional capacity assessment of substantial evidence, thereby invalidating it. Though the ALJ is not always required to provide an “exhaustive point-by-point discussion” of the evidence offered in support of a disability claim,7 it is а close call whether his failure to discuss the nonexertional limitation was error. Assuming, arguendo, that the ALJ erred here, the error was harmless, as discussed more fully below.
January‘s second contention has more merit, but ultimately fails. She arguеs that, in light of her nonexertional limitation, the ALJ erred in relying exclusively on the Guidelines to find she was not disabled at step five. January is correct that, as a general rule, the Commissioner may not rely exclusively on the Guidelines when thе claimant suffers from nonexertional impairments.8 That rule is subject to a substantial caveat, however, in that it does not apply when the claimant‘s nonexertional impairments “do not significantly affect [the claimant‘s] rеsidual functional capacity.”9 Here, the ALJ looked to the Guidelines without first determining that January‘s environmental restriction prohibiting her from working near machinery or heights significantly compromised her capacity to pеrform light work. This omission is error, as we cannot determine whether his decision to utilize the Guidelines—and thus declare January “not disabled“—is based on substantial evidence.10
Our analysis is not at an end, however, because we must analyzе whether the ALJ‘s error was harmless. It is well-established that “procedural perfection in administrative proceedings is not required as long as the substantial rights of a party have not been affected.”11 We are con
January argues that SSR 85-15 does not apply because her environmеntal restriction requires that she avoid all machinery and not just dangerous machinery. This argument is based solely on the language of the residual functional capacity checklist indicating that January should “avoid all exposure” to “hazards (machinery, heights, etc.).” We are not persuaded that the checklist language must be taken so literally. Indeed, the medical consultant ticked another box indicating that January had “unlimited” capability to “push and/or рull” within her exertional limitations. This capability, according to the checklist, includes the “operation of hand and/or foot controls“—actions typically associated with operating machinery. Moreover, January testified that she occasionally drove her car, which is undoubtedly “machinery.” Most importantly, a restriction from dangerous machinery comports with the other “hazards” described in the United States Department of Labor‘s Selected Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Revised Dictionary of Occupational Titles (SCO),14 one source from which the Commissioner may take administrative notice of work existing in the national eсonomy.15 Aside from “proximity to moving mechanical parts,” other hazards listed in the SCO include “exposure to electrical shock“; “working in high, exposed places“; “exposure to radiation“; “working with explosives“; and “exposure to toxic, caustic chemicals.”16 In this context, we believe that the checklist‘s language is shorthand for “dangerous machinery,” and that SSR 85-15 is applicable. Accordingly, remand to the Commissioner would serve no purpose because January‘s environmental restriction does not significantly erode her potential job base at the light work level.
Finally, January contends that we are precluded from relying on SSR 85-15 because the Commissioner did not rely on it below. Generally, we may only affirm an agency decision on the basis of the rationale it advanced below.17 However, there
*
*
*
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN
Circuit Judges