Opinion
No. A09-1465.
Filed May 11, 2010.
Appeal from the Department of Employment and Economic Development, File No. 22138988-3.
Marcella Ruiz, (pro se relator).
Lee B. Nelson, Britt K. Lindsay-Waterman, Department of Employment and Economic Development, (for respondent).
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge; Lansing, Judge; and Collins, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
By way of certiorari appeal, relator, an alien, challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was ineligible for benefits during the period for which she did not provide proof of her authorization to work. Because the ULJ's decision is mandated by statute, we affirm.
DECISION
"Whether the [ULJ's] decision was proper is a question of law reviewed de novo." Carlson v. Dep't of Employment Econ. Dev., 747 N.W.2d 367, 371 (Minn. App. 2008). Statutory interpretation is a question of law, also reviewed de novo. Id.
"An alien is ineligible for unemployment benefits for any week the alien is not authorized to work in the United States under federal law." Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 12(a) (2008). "Information from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services is considered conclusive, absent specific evidence that the information was erroneous." Id.
Relator Marcella Ruiz was found to be ineligible for unemployment benefits from February 14, 2009, to March 9, 2009, because she did not provide work-authorization documents for that period. She appealed, asserting that there had been no period when she was not authorized to work.
At the telephonic hearing, the ULJ told relator that Exhibit 10, a complete copy of a document from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, showed relator's work-authorization document history as February 14, 2007, to February 13, 2008; February 14, 2008, to February 13, 2009; and March 10, 2009, to March 9, 2010. The ULJ asked relator if she had any objection to any of the exhibits. Relator said she did not object, but also did not know why she would not have been authorized to work from February 14 to March 10. The ULJ found that relator had produced no evidence indicating that the information from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration services was erroneous and concluded that relator was ineligible for benefits from February 14, 2009, until March 9, 2009, because she was not authorized to work during that time.
Exhibit 9, also received, was a copy of the same document on which the right margin, giving the expiration dates of relator's work periods, had been cut off.
On her request for reconsideration, relator asserted "Homeland Security has colluded with the Unemployment office to deny me benefits for that period." The ULJ found that "[t]here is no evidence of collusion" and affirmed her previous decision.
Absent any specific evidence that the information from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services was erroneous, we must hold that the ULJ's decision that relator was ineligible for benefits during the period when she was not authorized to work was compelled as a matter of law.
Affirmed.