to request a review from the Social Security Appeals Council. See Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106, 120 S.Ct. 2080, 147 L.Ed.2d 80 (2000). 7 . At oral argument, Nodarse argued that case law supports that a subsequent SSI application is a de facto request to reopen the denial of a prior application. However, here, the ALJ clearly did consider reopening the prior application and refused to do so. "[Sjubject . matter jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's decision not to reopen a prior application exists in two limited circumstances: (1) a colorable constitutional claim is raised, or (2) the decision is reconsidered to any extent at any administrative level.” See Loudermilk v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 1265, 1268, (11th Cir. 2002); accord Macon v. Sullivan, 929 F.2d 1524, 1529 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff has not shown that either ground
holding that eaja applies to court proceedings for review of social security cases holding that district court lacked jurisdiction over claim for interim social security benefits during pendency of administrative proceedings holding that jurisdiction will exist in cases where a social security claim is in fact reopened and reconsidered on the merits to any extent on the administrative level holding that the function of the trial court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether issues of fact exist and not to decide the merits of the issues themselves holding a social security number is not private