Yang

MEMORANDUM ***

Claimant Susan Yang (“Yang”) appeals the district court’s decision to remand her claim for disability insurance benefits to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) for further proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1176-78 (9th Cir.2000), and we reverse and remand for the entry of benefits.

At a hearing before the ALJ, a vocational expert (“VE”) opined that if the testimony of either Yang or her doctor were credited, then Yang would qualify as disabled. The ALJ, however, rejected both sources of testimony and determined that Yang was not disabled because she retained the capacity to perform work that existed in the national economy. On appeal, the district court found that the ALJ’s rejection of the testimony of Yang and her doctor was improper and remanded for further proceedings. Yang now appeals the remand order, contending that the remand should be for an award of benefits.

Courts credit improperly rejected evidence and remand for benefits when: “ ‘(1) the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting such evidence, (2) there are no outstanding issues…