substantial evidence. In Keeton v. Department of Health & Human Services, 21 F.3d 1064, 1067 (11th Cir.1994), the court examined the social security review process and concluded that “the administrative process continues when a claimant seeks review of an ALJ decision ... and new evidence first submitted to the Appeals Council is part of the administrative record that goes to the district court for review.” In Ramirez v. Shalala, 8 F.3d 1449, 1452 (9th Cir.1993), the court noted that the Appeals Council’s decision to deny review rests on an examination of the merits of the entire record, including the new evidence, and embodies its conclusion that the additional evidence fails to provide a basis for changing the ALJ’s decision. See also Riley v. Shalala, 18 F.3d 619, 622 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Wilkins, 953 F.2d at 96 (holding that under
holding that court reviews aljs decision for substantial evidence on the record as a whole including the new evidence submitted after the determination was made holding a determination regarding eligibility for asylum is conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole holding that appeals council must consider evidence submitted with a request for review if it is a new b material and c related to the period on or before the date of the aljs decision holding that an aljs finding that a claimants iq score of 71 was not within the range of 6069 was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal