HALLEX I-3-3 in 2026: How the Appeals Council Decides Whether to Remand Your SSDI Case
The Appeals Council is the last administrative stop before federal court. If you lost at the ALJ hearing and you want SSA to take a second look, the AC is where that fight happens. The rules the AC uses to decide whether to grant review and whether to remand are spelled out in HALLEX I-3-3, the chapter of SSA's Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Law manual that covers AC review standards. Most claimants and even many representatives treat the AC request as a formality. That is a mistake. The AC remand rate in 2026 sits at roughly 13 to 16 percent of decided cases, but for claimants who file targeted briefs that cite the right HALLEX I-3-3 grounds, the actual win rate is much higher.
This article walks through how HALLEX I-3-3 actually works in 2026, the four grounds for remand, what new evidence the AC will consider, how Carr v Saul changed the issue-exhaustion analysis, and how to write a request for review that wins instead of one that disappears into the queue.
- The ALJ abused discretion in some part of the decision.
- The ALJ made an error of law.
- The ALJ decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
- There is a broad policy or procedural issue that may affect the public interest.
The basics of how the AC works
After the ALJ issues a written decision, you have 60 days plus a 5-day mailing presumption to file a request for review. The form is HA-520. The request can be filed electronically through SSA's online portal or on paper. The AC reviews the record, your request, any supporting brief, and any new evidence you submit. The AC may grant review and reach a different decision, remand the case to an ALJ for further proceedings, deny review and let the ALJ decision stand, or dismiss the request.
The AC is a panel of Administrative Appeals Judges supported by staff attorneys. AAJ panels review the record under standards set in 20 CFR 404.970 and 20 CFR 416.1470, with the operational details laid out in HALLEX I-3-3. The processing time in 2026 has dropped from a peak of over 400 days to roughly 200 to 260 days, which still feels slow but is meaningfully better than the worst of the post-pandemic backlog.
The four grounds for remand
HALLEX I-3-3-1 sets out four grounds the AC will consider in deciding whether to take a case. Every winning request for review names at least one of these grounds and ties it to a specific portion of the ALJ decision.
Abuse of discretion
Abuse of discretion covers situations where the ALJ acted in a way that no reasonable factfinder would have. The most common examples are: failing to develop the record, refusing to issue a subpoena that was properly requested, denying a request to leave the record open for new evidence, or making credibility judgments banned by SSR 16-3p. The AC reads abuse-of-discretion arguments tightly. The brief has to identify the specific action, explain why it was unreasonable, and show how it changed the outcome.
Error of law
Error of law is the broadest and most powerful ground. Any misapplication of a regulation, ruling, or POMS section counts. Examples that win remand in 2026:
- Using a credibility framework after SSR 16-3p.
- Counting past relevant work that falls outside the 5-year window or under the 30-day floor under SSR 24-2p.
- Treating a treating doctor opinion under the pre-2017 controlling-weight standard instead of the 20 CFR 404.1520c persuasiveness framework.
- Citing obsolete DOT jobs without methodology under SSR 24-3p.
- Failing to consider all seven 1529(c)(3) symptom factors.
- Skipping the borderline age analysis under 20 CFR 404.1563(b) when the claimant is within six months of a higher age category.
Substantial evidence
Substantial evidence is the lowest bar in administrative law. It means more than a scintilla and less than a preponderance. Saying the ALJ got the facts wrong rarely wins. What wins is showing that the evidence the ALJ cited does not actually support the finding. For example, if the ALJ wrote that the claimant could perform sedentary work and cited a consultative examiner's report, but the report itself said the claimant could not sit for more than 30 minutes at a time, the substantial-evidence standard fails. Quote the evidence and show the gap.
Broad policy or procedural issue
The fourth ground is rare in individual cases but worth knowing. The AC may take a case to clarify a policy or procedural matter that affects more than just this claimant. Most often the AC uses this ground when a circuit court has issued a new decision and SSA wants to align policy with the new law. Claimants can invoke this ground to argue that a recent appellate decision warrants review.
New and material evidence under 20 CFR 404.970(b)
The AC will consider new evidence only when it meets a four-part standard:
- The evidence is new. Not duplicative of evidence already in the record.
- The evidence is material. It relates to the issues in the case and could affect the outcome.
- The evidence relates to the period on or before the date of the ALJ decision. Post-decision evidence usually does not qualify but may support a new application.
- There is a reasonable probability the evidence would change the outcome.
On top of those four requirements, the claimant must show good cause for not submitting the evidence sooner. Examples of good cause include the provider not having released the records in time, a new diagnosis from a delayed test result, or a treating doctor's opinion statement that was being prepared but not yet signed by the hearing date.
Late evidence without a good cause statement is almost always rejected. The fix is to attach a one-paragraph good cause explanation with every piece of new evidence submitted to the AC.
How Carr v Saul reshaped AC arguments
The Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Carr v Saul, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), addressed whether claimants had to raise Appointments Clause challenges at the ALJ level to preserve them for federal court. The Court held they did not. The reasoning matters far beyond the narrow Appointments Clause issue.
The Court explained that the inquisitorial nature of SSA hearings makes strict issue-exhaustion inappropriate. SSA hearings are not adversarial. There is no opposing party making arguments. The ALJ both investigates and decides. In that setup, requiring claimants to raise every issue at the ALJ level to preserve federal court review would punish people for the structural design of the system.
The practical effect in 2026 is that claimants can raise constitutional issues and certain structural issues at the AC or in federal court without forfeiture. Appointments Clause, due process, Equal Protection, and certain statutory interpretation arguments fall into this category. The AC still benefits from seeing the issue first, so the right move is to raise constitutional arguments at the AC level even though Carr says you do not have to.
Beyond the constitutional context, lower federal courts have read Carr broadly to relax issue exhaustion for a range of arguments. The 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuits have all issued decisions since 2022 declining to find forfeiture on arguments that were not raised at the ALJ level when the issue had constitutional, structural, or jurisdictional roots.
How to write a request for review that wins
The single biggest reason claimants lose at the AC is vague briefs. A one-paragraph statement that says the ALJ got it wrong without identifying what specifically was wrong almost never produces a remand. The brief that wins follows a clear pattern.
Open with the headline grounds
Lead with a one-sentence statement of each HALLEX I-3-3 ground you are invoking. For example: "Review and remand are warranted because the ALJ committed legal error by applying a credibility standard contrary to SSR 16-3p and because the ALJ decision is not supported by substantial evidence as to the residual functional capacity finding."
Identify the specific findings
Quote the exact language from the ALJ decision that constitutes the error. Give page or finding numbers. The AC reads thousands of briefs. Make it easy to find what you are pointing at.
Connect the error to a regulation or ruling
Cite the rule the ALJ violated. SSR 16-3p, 20 CFR 404.1529, 20 CFR 404.1520c, SSR 24-2p, SSR 24-3p, HALLEX I-2-6-50 on hearing procedures, POMS DI 24515.062. Be specific. Generic arguments without rule citations rarely move the AC.
Explain materiality
Even when an error is real, the AC can deny review if it was harmless. Anticipate the harmless-error argument. Explain how a different application of the rule would change the RFC and how the changed RFC would change the outcome at step 4 or step 5.
Attach new evidence with good cause
If you have new evidence, attach it with a one-paragraph good cause statement. Identify why the evidence is new, material, and relates to the period on or before the ALJ decision date.
Close with the relief requested
Tell the AC what you want. Remand for a new hearing. Remand with specific instructions to apply SSR 16-3p properly. Reverse and grant benefits. The AC needs to know what you are asking for.
Worked example: Jasmine, 51, Pennsylvania, depression and chronic migraine
Jasmine lost at her hearing. The ALJ wrote that her testimony about migraine frequency was "not entirely credible" given gaps in neurologist visits during 2024. Her attorney filed a request for review citing two HALLEX I-3-3 grounds: error of law under SSR 16-3p and lack of substantial evidence.
The brief did three things. First, it quoted the ALJ's credibility language and cited SSR 16-3p section 1 prohibiting credibility framing. Second, it cited SSR 16-3p section 3.b. requiring consideration of reasons for treatment gaps and attached a one-page statement explaining that Jasmine lost insurance in March 2024 and could not afford neurology copays. Third, it cited 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(3) and pointed out that the ALJ decision addressed only three of the seven factors.
The AC remanded with instructions to apply SSR 16-3p properly and to address all seven 1529(c)(3) factors. On remand Jasmine won.
Worked example: Robert, 58, Michigan, lumbar degenerative disc disease
Robert lost at hearing on a step 4 finding that he could return to past relevant work as a tool and die maker, a job he had performed from 2007 to 2016. The hearing was held in October 2024, four months after SSR 24-2p took effect. The ALJ used the old 15-year PRW window without explicitly addressing the new rule.
His representative filed a request for review citing error of law under SSR 24-2p. The brief explained that the tool and die maker job ended in 2016, more than 5 years before the relevant period end date, and that the new 5-year window required excluding the job from PRW. The brief also pointed out that the ALJ had not addressed SSR 24-2p at all in the decision.
The AC remanded. On remand the case went directly to step 5 with no PRW, and the grids at 202.06 directed a finding of disabled.
Worked example: Carlos, 44, Arizona, post-stroke cognitive impairment
Carlos suffered a stroke in 2023 and applied for SSDI in 2024. The ALJ denied based partly on a state agency consultative examiner's report that said Carlos could perform simple work. Carlos's neurologist had submitted a brief opinion that Carlos could not reliably attend to tasks. The ALJ found the state agency report more persuasive without addressing the supportability of either opinion in detail.
His representative filed a request for review on three grounds: error of law for failing to apply 20 CFR 404.1520c persuasiveness factors in detail, lack of substantial evidence because the state agency examiner had only spent 25 minutes with Carlos, and new and material evidence in the form of a 12-page neuropsychological evaluation report dated 6 weeks before the ALJ decision that the neurologist's office had not released until after the hearing. The good cause statement explained the office delay.
The AC accepted the new evidence, agreed that 1520c had been misapplied, and remanded with instructions to re-evaluate medical opinion persuasiveness under the correct framework.
If you lost at hearing, your AC brief is where the case is won or lost. Get an eligibility review and a plan for the appeal before the 60-day deadline runs.
See If You QualifyCommon reasons the AC denies review
About 80 percent of AC requests get denied. The patterns are predictable. The most frequent reasons for denial in 2026:
- Vague or generic disagreement. Briefs that say the ALJ was wrong without identifying specific errors get treated as routine and denied.
- New evidence that does not relate to the period on or before the ALJ decision. Post-decision deterioration supports a new application but does not warrant remand.
- Good cause not shown. New evidence without a good cause statement gets excluded under 20 CFR 404.970(b).
- Harmless error. Even real errors that did not affect the outcome support denial.
- Substantial evidence threshold met. The standard is forgiving to ALJ decisions. If the evidence in the record could support the finding, the AC will not second-guess it.
Timing and deadlines in 2026
The deadlines for AC actions are strict. Miss them and the case is gone unless you can show good cause for late filing under 20 CFR 404.911. The key dates:
| Action | Deadline |
|---|---|
| Request for review of ALJ decision | 60 days from receipt of ALJ decision (5-day mailing presumption) |
| Additional written argument after Notice of Appeal | 25 days from Notice (HALLEX I-3-2-25) |
| Exceptions after court-remand recommended decision | 30 days from receipt (20 CFR 404.984(b)(1)) |
| Brief after AC takes a court-remand case | 20 days from notice (20 CFR 404.977(d)(1)) |
| Federal court complaint after AC denial | 60 days plus 5 mailing days from AC notice (42 USC 405(g)) |
| Federal court complaint after court-remand recommended decision becomes final | Hard 120 days from date of notice (no 5-day mailing allowance) |
What happens after a remand
When the AC remands a case, it issues an order vacating the ALJ decision and returning the file to the hearing office with specific instructions. The ALJ on remand must follow those instructions. If the AC says to apply SSR 16-3p properly, the new decision must explicitly address each 1529(c)(3) factor. If the AC says to consider a treating opinion under 1520c, the new decision must address supportability and consistency for that opinion.
HALLEX I-3-9-95 covers the rare situation where the ALJ on remand cannot carry out the AC's directive. The ALJ may seek clarification but only in narrow circumstances. The order vacating the remand is signed by the Executive Director, a Deputy, or a Division Chief AAJ, and the AC may reinstate jurisdiction with a 20-day comment window for the claimant.
The AC own-motion review
Outside of claimant-initiated requests, HALLEX I-3-3-3 allows the AC to take a case on its own motion within 60 days of an ALJ decision. Own-motion review usually targets fully favorable ALJ decisions the AC believes are unsupported. In 2026 own-motion review is rare for unfavorable decisions because the claimant already has the right to file a request for review. It is more common for the AC to flag fully favorable decisions that may have errors in onset date, RFC, or step 5 analysis.
State-specific context
The AC process is national but processing times and remand rates can vary by hearing office region. For state pages with current processing times, see Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, and New York.
Related reading
Frequently asked questions
- Can I file a request for review without a lawyer?
- Yes. The HA-520 form is short and SSA accepts pro se filings. But the AC level is heavy on legal argument. A claimant who files a one-paragraph disagreement has a much lower chance of remand than one who files a targeted brief citing HALLEX I-3-3 grounds and specific regulations.
- What if I miss the 60-day deadline?
- You can request an extension under 20 CFR 404.911 by showing good cause for late filing. Examples include serious illness, hospitalization, death in the family, or failure to receive notice. File the request with the extension request attached. Do not assume the extension will be granted. File on time when possible.
- Does the AC ever award benefits directly?
- Yes but it is rare. Roughly 1 to 2 percent of AC actions result in a direct reversal granting benefits. The AC prefers to remand because remand gives the ALJ a chance to correct the error with the AC's guidance. Direct reversal happens when the record overwhelmingly supports disability and remand would be futile.
- Should I keep going to my doctor while the AC reviews my case?
- Yes. Continued treatment supports a new application if the AC denies. It also keeps the record current in case the AC remands and you need updated evidence at the new hearing. Treatment also reinforces consistency under SSR 16-3p.
- Can I add evidence after I file the request for review?
- Yes. You have 25 days after the Notice of Appeal to submit additional argument and evidence. After that, late submissions require a good cause showing. The AC sometimes accepts late evidence if it meets the 404.970(b) standard and the good cause is strong.
Bottom line
HALLEX I-3-3 is the playbook for Appeals Council review in 2026. The four grounds for remand are abuse of discretion, error of law, lack of substantial evidence, and broad policy or procedural issues. New and material evidence under 20 CFR 404.970(b) is a separate path. Carr v Saul widened the issue-exhaustion door for constitutional and structural arguments. The claimants who win at the AC file targeted briefs that name a HALLEX I-3-3 ground, identify the specific ALJ finding that triggered it, cite the relevant rule, explain materiality, and request a clear form of relief. The claimants who lose write vague disagreement statements and hope for the best.
If you got an unfavorable ALJ decision, the 60-day clock is running. Build the brief now.
The difference between a remand and a denial often comes down to the brief. Find out what your case looks like under the HALLEX I-3-3 standards before the clock runs out.
See If You Qualify