After multiple hearings, the appeals referee concluded that, 

giving appellant the benefit of the doubt, there was good cause to deem the 

appeal timely because appellant did not fully understand the 

unemployment process based on his limited English language abilities. 1 

MGM Grand administratively appealed, and on appeal, the ESD's Board 

of Review reversed and set aside the appeals referee's decision. The Board 

concluded that there was no good cause to extend the filing deadline, 

because even if appellant reasonably waited to appeal until his 

employment grievance was resolved, there was no explanation or evidence 

in the record to justify waiting five weeks after the grievance was resolved 

to file the appeal. Appellant filed a petition for judicial review, which the 

district court denied. This appeal followed. 

In reviewing an administrative decision in an unemployment 

benefits matter, this court, like the district court, determines whether the 

board acted arbitrarily or capriciously. NRS 233B.135(3)(0; McCracken u. 

Fancy, 98 Nev. 30, 31, 639 P.2d 552, 553 (1982). The administrative 

decision will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence. 

Leeson t). Basic Refractories, 101 Nev. 384, 385-86, 705 P.2d 137, 138 

(1985). 

On appeal, appellant argues that there was no evidence 

showing that he understood the appeal process and that he was "forever 

foregoing" unemployment benefits by not filing his appeal within 11 days, 

and that this constitutes good cause for his untimely appeal. Under NRS 

612.495(1), an appeal from an ESD decision must be filed within 11 days 

'The appeals referee also decided the merits of appellant's claim, but 

as this was not addressed by the ESD, we do not address the merits here. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A eio 
after the notice of determination is mailed or personally served. This 11- 

day period may be extended, however, for good cause shown. NRS 

612.495(1). Having reviewed appellant's arguments and the record on 

appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding 

that appellant did not establish good cause so as to extend the filing 

deadline until December 2011. Appellant testified that he received the 

ESD decision and understood that he was supposed to file any appeal from 

that decision in June 2011, but that he did not file the appeal in June 

because he had filed a grievance with the union regarding his termination. 

The record also contains a letter from appellant to the ESD explaining 

that he did not timely appeal the denial of benefits because he was waiting 

for the result of his grievance process. Appellant's grievance was resolved 

on November 7, 2011, however, and there is nothing in the record that 

explains the delay between the resolution of the grievance and the filing of 

the appeal in December 2011. Thus, we conclude that substantial 

evidence supports the Board's decision that there was no good cause for 

the delay in filing the appeal. See Kolnik v. Nev. Pimp? Sec. Dep't, 112 

Nev. 11, 16, 908 P.2d 726, 729 (1996) ("Substantial evidence is that which 

a reasonable mind could find adequate to support a conclusion."). 

Appellant also argues that the Board erred because it did not 

take into account his limited English language abilities. The record, 

however, demonstrates that even when testifying in Amharic, appellant's 

native language, before the appeals referee, appellant stated that he knew 

he was supposed to file the appeal in June. Furthermore, appellant 

testified that he utilized English while at work, and the hearing 

transcripts show that the appeals referee had to remind appellant to 

provide his answers in Amharic through the translator instead of directly 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 19474 e 
Pickering 

Parraguirre 

,J. 

answering in English. As substantial evidence supports the Board's 

determination, we conclude that the Board's decision was not arbitrary or 

capricious, and thus, we affirm the district court's denial of appellant's 

petition for judicial review. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge 

Samuel H. Tekle 

State of Nevada/DETR 

Jackson Lewis LLP 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A