
    Celia V. MANITSAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-16887.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed March 26, 2014.
    Robert Weems, Weems Law Offices, Fairfax, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jeffrey Chen, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Celia Manitsas appeals the district court’s summary judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her request that the Social Security Administration waive recovery of overpaid disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Anderson v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1121, 1122 (9th Cir.1990). We must affirm the Commissioner’s refusal to waive an overpayment of benefits if it is supported by substantial evidence and if the Commissioner applied the proper legal standard. Id.

Substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s finding that Manitsas was “not without fault” and therefore did not qualify for a waiver of overpayment under 42 U.S.C. § 404(b) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.507. See McCarthy v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1119, 1126 (9th Cir.2000). Manitsas applied for a waiver, but she did not in addition request reconsideration of the initial overpayment determination pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.502a(f)-(h). Accordingly, the ALJ applied a correct legal standard in not considering the validity of the overpayment determination itself. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.905 (providing that initial determination is binding if individual does not request reconsideration).

Manitsas contends that the ALJ erred in denying her request to reopen the overpayment determination because she was entitled to tolling under Social Security Ruling 91-5p. We affirm the district court’s holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the ALJ’s denial. The denial of the request to reopen was a non-reviewable administrative action. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.903(7); Klemm v. Astrue, 543 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir.2008). In addition, Manitsas did not present a colorable due process claim. See Klemm, 543 F.3d at 1144-45.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     