Cssa

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Terrazas (“Claimant”) appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. We review “to ensure that the Secretary’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and a correct application of the law.” Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179, 182 (9th Cir.1995).

She raises three issues. First, whether the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) “erred in failing to discuss listings 1.06 and/or listing 1.02.” Second, “whether the ALJ should have afforded controlling weight to the opinion of the treating doctor.” Third, “whether the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons to reject [her] subjective complaints.... ” Our review of the record demonstrates that these issues have no merit. Thus we affirm.

As to the allegation of listings evaluation error, we first note that Claimant did not raise or rely on listings 1.02 or 1.06 at the administrative level, even though it was her burden to do so. Roberts, 66 F.3d at 182 . Moreover, based on the evidence before him, the ALJ concluded that “[t]here is no substantial…