reasons for rejecting Wil-lens’s testimony. First, the ALJ reasonably found that Willens’s daily activities were not as limited as one would expect given his allegations of disabling symptoms and limitations. For instance, although Willens testified that he was totally disabled, the ALJ noted that Willens indicated on his Function Reports that he was' able to groom and bathe himself, prepared his own meals, did laundry, drove, shopped for groceries, socialized with friends, managed his finances, and occasionally did housework. In addition, the ALJ correctly noted that since his onset date Willens had traveled to Mexico where he walked quite a bit, and this was inconsistent with his testimony of disabling' limitations. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). Second, the ALJ reasonably found that
holding that the alj properly discounted a treating physicians report where the physician was unsure of the accuracy of his findings and statements holding that the alj properly discounted a claimants testimony about the extent of his pain and limitations based on his ability to travel holding that when an alj improperly rejects a claimants testimony regarding his limitations and the claimant would be disabled if his testimony were credited the testimony must be credited as a matter of law holding that the alj properly relied on medical evidence undermining claimants subjective assessment of limitations holding that alj may not base adverse credibility finding on his perceptions of claimants pain at the hearing where record shows objective evidence of claimants pain