NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

ABRAHAM ABEBE, Appellant,

v.

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC 

SECURITY, an Agency, Appellee.

No. 1 CA-UB 22-0418

Appeal from the A.D.E.S. Appeals Board

No. U-1804019-001-B

REVERSED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Greenberg Traurig LLP, Phoenix

By Jorge Coss, Korey Cowan

Counsel1 for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa

By Emily M. Stokes 

Counsel for Appellee

1 The court expresses its appreciation to pro bono counsel for 

contributing their time, energy, and other resources in pursuing this appeal. 

FILED 11-16-2023
ABEBE v. ADES

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.

C A MP B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Abraham Abebe appeals the decision of the Arizona 

Department of Economic Security (ADES) Appeals Board finding he failed 

to demonstrate excusable neglect for failing to appear at a hearing to contest 

the denial of benefits. Because we disagree with that finding, we reverse the 

Appeals Board’s denial of Abebe’s request to reopen his case and remand 

for a hearing on the merits.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Abebe was born in Ethiopia, and his native language is 

Amharic. During the Covid-19 pandemic he applied for Pandemic 

Unemployment Assistance and was denied benefits. He requested a 

hearing to contest that decision. One month before the hearing, ADES 

mailed Abebe a notice informing him of the date and time of the telephonic 

hearing. The five-page notice provided registration instructions in English 

and language-assistance instructions in both English and Spanish. The 

instructions directed him to register no earlier than one business day and 

no later than 15 minutes before the start of the hearing. The notice also 

contained directions to remain available for 30 minutes in the event the 

previous hearing ran long. Abebe received the notice but failed to register.

¶3 On November 10, at the time set for the hearing, Abebe 

waited for a call from ADES. That call did not come. Instead, when the 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) prepared to call the case and discovered 

that Abebe had not registered, the case was summarily dismissed. Less than 

an hour after the scheduled hearing, Abebe called ADES and was told that 

the case had been dismissed because he had not registered. Abebe asked 

that his case be reopened, stating that he did not understand that he needed 

to register for the hearing. Shortly after the missed hearing, Abebe 

hand-delivered a letter to ADES apologizing for his mistake and again 

explaining it was his understanding that the judge would call him at the 

telephone number he listed in his application. Another hearing was set to 

allow Abebe to show good cause to reopen his case.
ABEBE v. ADES

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 Abebe appeared and testified at the good-cause hearing, this 

time with the assistance of an interpreter. Abebe explained he did not 

understand the need to register before the hearing. It was not until he called

the ADES helpline that he was told that his failure to register forfeited his 

right to a hearing on the merits. Abebe did not expressly attribute his 

misunderstanding of the registration instructions to his command of the 

English language, but he stated that he did not understand the process and 

was unaware of the registration requirement.

¶5 The ALJ concluded that Abebe had not shown good cause to 

reopen his case because he failed to show that his failure to appear was due 

to excusable neglect. The ALJ found that the instructions for registering 

were set out in the notice such that a reasonably prudent person would 

have understood them. Since the ALJ determined that Abebe failed to show 

good cause, his request to reopen was denied.

¶6 Abebe petitioned the Appeals Board for review of this 

decision. In his petition, he explained that a language barrier caused him to 

misunderstand the registration instructions. The Appeals Board rejected 

the argument, noting that Abebe should have sought assistance from the 

ADES helpline when he received the hearing notice if he did not 

understand the registration instructions. The Board affirmed the denial of 

benefits and the determination that he had failed to demonstrate excusable 

neglect in failing to register and appear for the hearing. Abebe appealed to 

this court, arguing that his misunderstanding of the registration 

instructions constitutes excusable neglect necessitating the reopening of his 

case. We agree with Abebe.

DISCUSSION

¶7 We defer to an agency’s findings of fact unless they are 

arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Figueroa v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. 

Sec., 227 Ariz. 548, 550, ¶ 9 (App. 2011). But we can draw our own legal 

conclusions in determining whether the Appeals Board correctly 

interpreted the law. Munguia v. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 159 Ariz. 157, 159 (App.

1988). Additionally, we may substitute our judgment for the agency’s 

regarding the legal effect of facts presented. Weller v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 

176 Ariz. 220, 224 (App. 1993).

¶8 By ADES rule, a party who fails to appear for a hearing after 

which an adverse decision is issued may request a hearing to show good 

cause to reopen the case. A.A.C. R6-3-1503(B)(3)(b). To establish good 

cause, the party must show that the failure to appear and timely notify the 
ABEBE v. ADES

Decision of the Court

4

hearing officer was due to reasons outside the party’s reasonable control or 

due to excusable neglect. A.A.C. R6-3-1503(B)(3)(d). Neglect is excusable 

when it “might be the action of a reasonably prudent person in the same 

circumstances.” Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger, 178 Ariz. 151, 163 (App. 1993)

(construing excusable neglect under civil rule governing relief from 

judgment). Mistakes such as mis-calendaring and untimely filing due to 

clerical error have been found excusable by our court. Maldonado v. Ariz. 

Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 182 Ariz. 476, 477–78 (App. 1994); City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 

144 Ariz. 323, 332 (1985). And of particular significance, “f]ailure to 

understand legal proceedings and ramifications due to a limited 

comprehension of the English language” may constitute excusable neglect, 

especially in cases where a default judgment was rendered against the party 

with the language deficiency. Coroban v. Coroban, 1 CA-CV 07-0875, 2008 

WL 4602528 at *2, ¶ 10 (Ariz. App. Oct. 9, 2008) (mem. decision); see also 

Cota v. S. Ariz. Bank & Tr. Co., 17 Ariz. App. 326, 327 (1972) (noting 

appellants “should not be penalized by the extreme sanction of a default 

judgment” when “their linguistic handicap cause[d] them to fail to answer 

a complaint”).

¶9 We are now tasked with determining if Abebe’s 

misunderstanding of his registration obligation amounts to the excusable 

neglect necessary to show the good cause required to reopen his case. Here, 

we disagree with the ALJ and the Appeals Board’s finding that Abebe’s 

misunderstanding of the registration requirement did not amount to 

excusable neglect. ADES asks us to consider only the actions Abebe should 

have taken before the hearing: “a reasonably prudent person who knew 

that he had difficulties understanding English would have sought 

information or advice from DES or from an English-speaking acquaintance 

before the hearing to ensure that he understood the hearing notice’s 

instructions.” But were we to focus solely on the pre-hearing actions, we 

would be required to disregard consideration of a genuine mistake that 

could not have been discovered until after the preclusive event occurred. If 

Abebe believed he understood the registration instructions before the 

hearing, he would have no reason to seek additional help. He was not 

alerted to his misunderstanding until after the preclusive event occurred—

namely, his failure to register and subsequent case dismissal. ADES’s 

reasoning ignores that someone may not understand what is required until 

they suffer the repercussions of their misunderstanding. The ALJ and 

Appeals Board’s finding unfairly penalizes Abebe for not knowing what he 

did not know. See Cota, 17 Ariz. App. at 327 (“[W]here a person’s ignorance 

of the English language has prevented him from discovering that legal 

proceedings have been taken against him until after rendition of judgment, 

such illiteracy should be considered.”). Had Abebe previously participated 
ABEBE v. ADES

Decision of the Court

5

in the process and registered, his argument would not be persuasive. But 

those are not the facts of this case.

¶10 Abebe’s misunderstanding and mistake in failing to register 

must also be considered in light of his prompt action of contacting ADES

when the call from the ALJ did not come. These are the actions of a

reasonably prudent person operating under a misunderstanding of the 

registration requirements. See Geyler, 144 Ariz. at 332 (emphasizing the 

importance of diligence in determining whether neglect was excusable).

Even under ADES regulations, the timely notification of a 

misunderstanding regarding how to participate in a hearing mitigates 

against a determination that the claimant failed to appear—

A.C.C. R6-3-1503(B)(3)(d) provides that “both the failure to appear and 

failure to timely notify the hearing officer were either beyond the reasonable 

control of the non-appearing party or due to excusable neglect.” (Emphasis 

added.) Abebe’s language difficulties, as evidenced by his later request for 

an interpreter, provides further support that he was not aware of his

misunderstanding before the hearing. Abebe’s circumstances and actions

lead us to conclude that a language barrier contributed to his 

misunderstanding leading to his failure to appear. And, to ensure that such 

a language-related mistake would not happen again, Abebe requested an 

interpreter for his good-cause hearing. We are persuaded that his failure to 

appear resulted from excusable neglect. See Cota, 17 Ariz. App. at 327.

¶11 Finally, we note that granting Abebe relief is consistent with 

our general desire to hear claims on the merits. Maldonado, 182 Ariz. at 479. 

The registration requirement for telephonic hearings creates the possibility 

that claims will be dismissed summarily if the claimant fails to register. 

Case dismissal based on a misinterpretation of hearing instructions goes 

against our long-held principle that “[c]laims should be heard on their 

merits if the failure to comply with a deadline or attend a hearing [ ]can be 

said to be excusable.” Id. While we do not today decide whether Abebe is 

entitled to benefits, there was good cause for his failure to appear.
ABEBE v. ADES

Decision of the Court

6

CONCLUSION

¶12 We reverse the Appeals Board’s denial of Abebe’s request to 

reopen his case and remand for a hearing on the merits.