Kent

MEMORANDUM **

Ruth Kent appeals the district court’s dismissal of her actions designed to obtain review of decisions of the Social Security Administration, which declined to further consider a determination denying her benefits. We affirm.

The district court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to issue relief in either of the actions because it could not, in general, review decisions denying hear *564 ings 1 and no exceptions applied. We agree.

(1) In general, the courts have no jurisdiction to review denials of reopening decisions. See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g); Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107-09 , 97 S.Ct. 980, 985-86 , 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977); Subia v. Cornm’r of Soc. Sec., 264 F.3d 899, 902 (9th Cir.2001). In No. 03-56796, Kent seeks review of the failure to grant a hearing to reopen the first (April 14, 1998) application’s denial based upon the second (July-28, 2000) application and other requests. She asserts that she has spelled out a colorable claim that the failure denied her due process. We disagree. The mere allegation of a due process claim does not assure that the claim is colorable, as it must be. See Hoye v. Sullivan, 985 F.2d 990, 992 (9th Cir.1992) (per…