Court Opinion

ID: 9383067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 15:15:49.160534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:43.424122
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 21-1861
                              Filed March 29, 2023

HUSSEIN S. YOUSIF,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

IOWA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
     Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Sarah Crane, Judge.

      Hussein Yousif appeals the district court’s ruling on judicial review affirming

the agency decision denying his claim for pandemic unemployment assistance

benefits. AFFIRMED.

      Hussein S. Yousif, Des Moines, self-represented appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Benjamin J. Flickinger (until withdrawal)

and Samuel P. Langholz, Assistant Attorneys General, and Jeffrey P. Koncsol,

Des Moines, for appellee.

      Considered by Badding, P.J., Buller, J., and Danilson, S.J.*

      *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2023).
                                          2

DANILSON, Senior Judge.

       Hussein Yousif appeals the district court’s ruling on judicial review affirming

the agency decision denying his claim for pandemic unemployment assistance

benefits. Upon our review, we affirm the decision of the district court.

I.     Background Facts and Procedure

       Hussein Yousif filed a claim with Iowa Workforce Development for

pandemic unemployment assistance (PUA) benefits.            The agency denied the

application upon determining Yousif was “not considered unemployed, partially

unemployed, or unable or unavailable to work for one of the qualifying reasons

identified under section 2102(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and

Economic Security (CARES) Act.” Yousif appealed. Following a hearing, an

administrative law judge affirmed the decision finding Yousif ineligible for PUA

benefits. The decision, which was “dated and mailed on December 14, 2020,”

stated it “shall become final unless [Yousif appealed to the Employment Appeal

Board] within fifteen (15) days.”

       Yousif appealed to the board on December 31, seventeen days after the

administrative law judge’s decision. The board acknowledged receipt of Yousif’s

appeal, but “prior to assuming jurisdiction,” ordered the parties to “submit briefs

and arguments regarding the timeliness of the appeal.” Yousif did not provide any

additional information or other filings arguing he had good cause to appeal. On

February 1, the board thereafter entered a decision affirming the administrative law

judge’s December 14 decision denying benefits as “final,” stating in part, “Good

cause for the late filing was not shown. The appeal was not filed in a timely

manner.”
                                           3

       Yousif subsequently sought judicial review by the district court. At the

hearing, with regard to the issue of timeliness, Yousif stated, “[W]hen they decided,

you know, go through the appeals within their system, basically, from there is that

when I tried it, it was like a little bit of delay because I was looking at federal court

papers.” Yousif provided no other explanation why his appeal was untimely. The

district court thereafter entered an order dismissing Yousif’s petition for judicial

review, finding Yousif “failed to timely appeal and then failed to present any

explanation to support good cause.” The court further found Yousif “has not

demonstrated a lack of substantial evidence supported the [board]’s determination

or that the determination was an abuse of discretion, arbitrary, or otherwise

unreasonable.” Yousif now appeals the district court’s order.

II.    Standard of Review

       “When reviewing the decision of the district court’s judicial review ruling, we

determine if we would reach the same result as the district court in our application

of the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act.”         Sladek v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 939

N.W.2d 632, 637 (Iowa 2020) (citation omitted). Whether good cause for an

untimely appeal exists “is a fact issue within the discretion of the [Employment

Appeal] Board to decide.” Houlihan v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 545 N.W.2d 863, 865

(Iowa 1996). We generally defer to the agency’s findings of fact if supported by

substantial evidence.      See Sladek, 939 N.W.2d at 637 (citing Iowa Code

§ 17A.19(10)(f)). “Substantial evidence is ‘the quantity and quality of evidence that

would be deemed sufficient by a neutral, detached, and reasonable person, to

establish the fact at issue when the consequences resulting from the establishment

of that fact are understood to be serious and of great importance.’” Hintermeister
                                         4

v. Emp. Appeal Bd., No. 22-0187, 2023 WL 395071, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 25,

2023) (quoting Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f)(1)).

III.   Discussion

       On appeal, Yousif contends he “did in fact send out motion for

reconsideration on October 24, 2021 explaining all of the reasons why [his] 2-day

delay [should be excused] for medical reasons health issue,” but the district court

denied his motion. Indeed, Yousif’s motion for reconsideration—filed after the

district court’s order dismissing his petition for judicial review—claimed he “tried”

to file his appeal on December 30, 2020,1 but he encountered “weather issues

snow” and he also had “health issues at the time.”2

       The law regulating appeals from the administrative law judge to the

Employment Appeal Board is found in Iowa Administrative Code rule 486–

3.1(10A), which states as follows: “A party aggrieved by a decision of an

administrative law judge may appeal to the employment appeal board within 15

days from the date of the decision.” The rule further provides: “The appeal board

shall dismiss appeals which are not filed within 15 days from the date of the

administrative law judge’s decision, unless good cause for the delay has been

shown.” Iowa Admin. Code r. 486–3.1(16)(10A). Good cause has been defined

as “a sound, effective, truthful reason, something more than an excuse, a plea,

1 We observe December 30, 2020 was also beyond the fifteen-day deadline.
2 We note that even assuming, arguendo, Yousif’s statements before the district
court could support a finding of good cause, the court was unable to consider
evidence not previously presented to the agency. See Iowa Code § 17A.19(7) (“In
proceedings for judicial review of agency action in a contested case, however, a
court shall not itself hear any further evidence with respect to those issues of fact
whose determination was entrusted by the Constitution or a statute to the agency
in that contested case proceeding.”).
                                          5

apology, extenuation, or some justification for the resulting effect.” Houlihan, 545

N.W.2d at 866. As the supreme court has observed, “The fifteen-day deadline is

primarily to ensure order and promptness and was not intended automatically to

deprive good faith late appeals of a review on the merits.” Id.

       Here, it is undisputed Yousif’s appeal to the board was filed two days past

the fifteen-day deadline. Even so, the board filed an “acknowledgment of appeal,”

directing Yousif to provide argument “regarding the timeliness of the appeal” within

“ten (10) days.” Yousif offered no explanation for his late appeal. But see id. at

866 (observing a claimant must show “his failure to defend was not due to his

negligence or want of ordinary care or attention, or to his carelessness or

inattention,” and that “affirmatively he did intend to defend and took steps to do so,

but because of some misunderstanding, accident, mistake or excusable neglect

failed to do so”).   Without any reasoning or explanation provided, the board

accordingly concluded Yousif had not shown “good cause for the delay in filing.”

See, e.g., City of Harlan v. Thygesen, No. 21-0265, 2022 WL 951137, at *3 (Iowa

Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2022) (“The absence of evidence to support a finding necessarily

means the absence of substantial evidence to support the finding.”). Indeed, the

district court noted Yousif “stated in the hearing before this Court that the appeal

was late because it slipped his mind and he was busy working on a separate

federal court matter.” The court further found:

             There is no dispute in the certified record that Petitioner’s
       appeal to the EAB was filed late. Further, when offered the
       opportunity to explain the untimely appeal, Petitioner failed to
       respond.
             ....
             Here, the EAB was not presented with any facts to support a
       determination of good cause because Petitioner failed to address the
                                           6

       issue of timeliness before the EAB. Although the Petitioner now
       asserts the deadline slipped his mind and he was busy addressing a
       different federal court case, those explanations were not provided to
       the EAB. In Houlihan v. Employment Appeal Bd., 545 N.W.2d 863
       (Iowa 1996), the Iowa Supreme Court remanded for a determination
       of good cause where “considerable evidence” supported the
       contention of good cause and the EAB had failed to make a decision
       on whether there was good cause. Here, the EAB provided the
       opportunity for Petitioner to address the timeliness, Petitioner did not
       respond, and the EAB therefore made a decision that good cause
       was not established.
              The Court finds the Petitioner has not demonstrated a lack of
       substantial evidence supported the EAB’s determination or that the
       determination was an abuse of discretion, arbitrary, or otherwise
       unreasonable. Petitioner failed to timely appeal and then failed to
       present any explanation to support good cause.

       We acknowledge Yousif’s notice of appeal left no doubt that he wanted to

appeal. However, Yousif not only submitted his notice of appeal late, when given

the opportunity to provide reasons to the EAB to support good cause for the late

filing, Yousif failed to respond. Upon our review, we affirm the district court’s denial

of Yousif’s petition for judicial review of the underlying agency action finding Yousif

had not shown good cause for his untimely appeal.

       AFFIRMED.