622 (1984); Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). The requirement of a “final decision” has two components: (1) a non-waivable requirement that a claim for benefits has been presented to the Secretary, and (2) a waivable requirement that the administrative remedies prescribed by the Secretary have been exhausted. City of New York v. Heckler, 742 F.2d 729, 734 (2d Cir.1984), aff'd sub nom. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 106 S.Ct. 2022, 90 L.Ed.2d 462 (1986). The term “final decision” is not defined in the Social Security Act. It has, however, been construed by the Commissioner through a series of regulations setting forth a detailed administrative process. See Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 766, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Under those regulations, an individual
holding that the term indecent act required no further definition holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended holding that a broad statutory definition of a term that was inconsistent with the terms plain meaning did not affect the terms definition in other contexts holding the same where the term conviction refers to a defendant who has been found guilty of a listed offense but has not yet been sentenced holding that definition of the term final decision has been left to the commissioner to flesh out by regulation