of his insurance window with the Social Security Administration. The ALJ opined that Grogan’s limited ability to function during 1990-91 was due to his illegal drug use, and the ALJ dismissed Grogan’s application for benefits at step two of the five-step process. The Appeals Council affirmed, and the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. Standard ofRevieiv and Analysis Although the agency’s decision not to reopen a claimant’s application for benefits is discretionary and therefore not subject to judicial review under § 405(g), Brown v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 1194, 1196 (10th Cir.1990), once the agency reopens an application for benefits, it assumes the responsibility to adjudicate a claimant’s case properly. See Byam v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 172, 180-81 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Cash v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th
holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo recognizing jurisdiction to review the commissioners procedure after the agency reopens an application for benefits holding that when considering an agency action as to which the statute does not specify the standard of review the courts of appeals must proceed pursuant to the apas general standard of review for agency actions in 5 usc  7062a holding that the bias streamlining procedure does not compromise appellate review because the ijs decision becomes the final agency action subject to direct review by the court of appeals holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review