Reynolds

MEMORANDUM ***

Mary Reynolds appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for Supplemental Social Securi *164 ty Income benefits under Title XVI of the ■ Social Security Act. We affirm.

We review a district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s final decision de novo. Batson v. Comm’r of SSA, 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004). The Commissioner’s decision must be affirmed unless the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) determinations are “based on legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.” Schneider v. Comm’r of SSA, 223 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2000). “Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be upheld.” Morgan v. Comm’r of SSA, 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir.1999).

To decide if a claimant is entitled to benefits, an ALJ conducts a five-step inquiry. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 . The ALJ first considers whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; if not, the ALJ asks, in the second step, whether the claimant has a severe impairment (i.e., one that significantly affects his or her ability to…