
    Belkis CASTRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 04-56004.
    D.C. No. CV-03-00981-PJW.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 22, 2005.
    Steven G. Rosales, Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Erika Johnson-Brooks, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Liz Noteware, Esq., Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Belkis Castro appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s denial of her application for Title II Social Security disability insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision, and we review for substantial evidence and legal error the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The ALJ’s determination that Castro was not disabled due to a mental condition was supported by substantial evidence. See id. To the extent the ALJ rejected or ascribed less weight to the controverted opinions of certain physicians, his reasoning was specific and legitimate. See id. at 957; Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir.1989). The ALJ properly deemed Castro’s inability to drive immaterial to the disability determination because substantial evidence showed Castro could use public transportation or rely on others to commute to the gainful employment the vocational expert testified Castro was able to perform in the national economy. See Frost v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 359, 361 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     