Mekhalian

MEMORANDUM ****

Mekhalian appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint and its subsequent order denying his mo *587 tion for reconsideration. We affirm. Because the facts of this case are known to the parties, we need not repeat them here.

I

“We review de novo the district court’s order of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Evans v. Chater, 110 F.3d 1480, 1481 (9th Cir.1997). We hold, for the reasons stated below, that we lack subject matter jurisdiction because Mek-halian seeks review of an order of the Commissioner not ordinarily subject to judicial review, see Udd v. Massanari, 245 F.3d 1096, 1098-99 (9th Cir.2001) (“[a] decision not to reopen a prior, final benefits decision is discretionary and ordinarily does not constitute a final decision; therefore, it is not subject to judicial review”), and he has not raised a colorable constitutional claim of a due process violation to overcome the jurisdictional bar. See id. at 1099 (to be colorable, a constitutional claim must not be “wholly insubstantial, immaterial, or frivolous”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Mekhalian argues that the Appeals Council denied him due process by…