Hussein S. Yousif v. Iowa Workforce Development

Citation: Not availableDocket: 21-1861

Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa; March 29, 2023; Iowa; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Hussein S. Yousif appealed the district court’s ruling affirming Iowa Workforce Development's denial of his pandemic unemployment assistance (PUA) benefits claim. The agency concluded that Yousif did not meet the eligibility criteria outlined in the CARES Act. Following a hearing, an administrative law judge upheld this decision, noting that Yousif's appeal to the Employment Appeal Board was filed 17 days late, missing the 15-day deadline for good cause. The board confirmed this late filing was not justified and upheld the agency’s denial. Yousif then sought judicial review, where he failed to provide sufficient reasoning for the delay. The district court dismissed his petition, finding no evidence of substantial error or abuse of discretion by the board. In reviewing the district court’s decision, it was determined that it aligned with the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, affirming the district court's conclusion regarding the untimeliness of Yousif's appeal and the lack of good cause.

Deference is given to agency findings of fact when supported by substantial evidence, defined as the quantity and quality of evidence sufficient for a reasonable person to establish the fact at issue, particularly when serious consequences are involved. In an appeal, Yousif argued he submitted a motion for reconsideration on October 24, 2021, to excuse a two-day delay in filing due to medical issues and weather complications. However, his appeal was filed two days after the 15-day deadline set by Iowa Administrative Code rule 486–3.1(10A), which allows for appeals within that timeframe unless good cause for delay is demonstrated. Good cause requires a credible reason beyond mere excuses. 

Although the Employment Appeal Board (EAB) acknowledged Yousif's appeal and requested arguments regarding its timeliness, he failed to provide any explanation for the delay. The court highlighted that Yousif’s reasoning—claiming he forgot the deadline while occupied with another federal case—was not presented to the EAB, resulting in a lack of evidence to support a finding of good cause for the delay. Consequently, the EAB concluded that Yousif did not demonstrate good cause, and the district court noted that his failure to respond to the timeliness issue further undermined his appeal.

In Houlihan v. Employment Appeal Bd., 545 N.W.2d 863 (Iowa 1996), the Iowa Supreme Court remanded the case for a determination of good cause due to substantial evidence supporting such a claim, which the Employment Appeal Board (EAB) had not addressed. The EAB allowed the Petitioner the chance to respond regarding the timeliness of his appeal; however, the Petitioner did not provide a response, leading the EAB to conclude that good cause was not established. The Court determined that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a lack of substantial evidence supporting the EAB’s decision or prove any abuse of discretion. Despite the clarity of the Petitioner’s intent to appeal, he submitted his appeal notice late and did not provide justification when prompted by the EAB. As a result, the district court's denial of the Petitioner’s request for judicial review was affirmed, confirming that the Petitioner did not show good cause for his late appeal. AFFIRMED.