In the Matter of: Eden Tesfaye.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-1442

In the Matter of: Eden Tesfaye.

Filed June 6, 2022
Remanded
Slieter, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 46109810-6

Eden Tesfaye, Eagan, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Keri A. Phillips, Anne B. Froelich, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Masterson Staffing Solutions, Bloomington, Minnesota (respondent employer)

Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and Klaphake,
Judge.
∗
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SLIETER, Judge
Relator challenges a decision by an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was
ineligible for unemployment benefits. Relator initially received benefits but, after her
employment authorization document (EAD) expired, a ULJ determined relator was

∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
ineligible for benefits. In the interests of justice, we consider for the first time that relator’s
application for extension of her work authorization automatically extended her eligibility
for unemployment benefits. We remand to the ULJ to consider its impact on realtor’s
eligibility for benefits.
FACTS
From February 2019 to March 2020, relator Eden Tesfaye worked for respondent
Masterson Staffing Solutions. Tesfaye is a lawful permanent resident who possessed an
EAD allowing her to work in the United States. After Masterson ended her employment
in March 2020, Tesfaye applied for unemployment benefits with respondent, Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED).
Upon application for unemployment benefits and as required as a non-citizen,
Tesfaye provided DEED a copy of her EAD. According to DEED, she then collected
regular state unemployment benefits, and, after her state benefits ended, she solely received
federal pandemic emergency unemployment compensation (PEUC) benefits from April 5,
2020 to April 24, 2021.
Because her existing EAD was to expire on January 1, 2021, Tesfaye applied for a
new EAD from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in November 2020.
Before her EAD expired, Tesfaye received a notice from DHS, dated November 23, 2020,
that it received her renewal application (known as a Form I-797C, Notice of Action). The
renewal process was delayed because of the pandemic.
On May 3, 2021, DEED mailed Tesfaye a determination of ineligibility, stating that
she was ineligible for benefits beginning April 11, 2021, because she was unauthorized to
3
work in the United States due to the expiration of her existing EAD. DEED also
determined that it overpaid Tesfaye $954 in benefits.
Tesfaye appealed the determination of ineligibility. Without a hearing, a ULJ
affirmed Tesfaye’s ineligibility. Tesfaye requested reconsideration and the ULJ held an
evidentiary hearing during which Tesfaye provided the only testimony. The ULJ again
affirmed Tesfaye’s ineligibility due to the expired EAD. Tesfaye again requested
reconsideration and the ULJ, upon reconsideration without another hearing, affirmed her
ineligibility.1 Tesfaye appeals by writ of certiorari.
DECISION
When reviewing a ULJ’s decision, we may reverse, remand, or modify a ULJ’s
decision if it reflects an error of law and prejudices an applicant’s substantial rights. Minn.
Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(4) (2020). “We review de novo a ULJ’s determination that an
applicant is ineligible for unemployment benefits.” Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck
Leasing, LLC, 814 N.W.2d 25, 30 (Minn. App. 2012). We “will not disturb the ULJ’s
factual findings when the evidence substantially sustains them.” Peterson v. Nw. Airlines,
Inc., 753 N.W.2d 771, 774 (Minn. App. 2008) (citation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
1, 2008). We view the ULJ’s findings of fact in the light most favorable to the decision,
deferring to the ULJ’s credibility determinations. Id.

1 Tesfaye submitted a copy of her new EAD on October 21, 2021. On October 25, 2021,
the ULJ determined, in its denial of Tesfaye’s request for reconsideration, that Tesfaye was
again eligible for benefits, effective October 21, 2021. The ULJ thus determined that
Tesfaye was ineligible for unemployment benefits from April 11, 2020 to October 20,
2021.
4
An immigrant is ineligible for unemployment benefits for any week the immigrant
is unauthorized to work in the United States. Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 12(a) (2020).2
“Information from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services is conclusive,
absent specific evidence that the information was erroneous.” Id.
For the first time on appeal, Tesfaye argues that the Form I-797C, Notice of Action,
she received after submitting her EAD-renewal application automatically extended her
work authorization for 180 days. Generally, we do not consider arguments not presented
to and considered by the ULJ. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988); In
re A.D., 883 N.W.2d 251, 261 (Minn. 2016) (applying Thiele in a certiorari appeal). But
this rule is not “ironclad,” Putz v. Putz, 645 N.W.2d 343, 350 (Minn. 2002) (quotation
omitted), and we may address new issues on appeal “as the interest of justice may require,”
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.04.
We conclude that the interests of justice require our consideration of Tesfaye’s
claim that her Form I- 797C, Notice of Action, extended her work authorization for 180
days. Though the ULJ did not previously receive a copy of Tesfaye’s Form I-797C, Notice
of Action, the purposes of the unemployment-insurance program support our remand.
Minn. Stat. § 268.03 (2020) (“The public good is promoted by providing workers who are
unemployed through no fault of their own a temporary partial wage replacement to assist
the unemployed worker to become reemployed.”). Further, the unemployment-insurance
statute directs us and the ULJ to construe statutes “in favor of awarding unemployment

2 An immigrant unauthorized to work in the United States is similarly barred from receiving
PEUC benefits. 15 U.S.C.A. § 9025(a)(4)(B) (West Supp. 2021).
5
benefits” and narrowly construe provisions precluding an applicant from receiving
benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.031, subd. 2 (2020).
We therefore remand to the ULJ to consider the Form I-797C, Notice of Action, as
part of Tesfaye’s request for reconsideration pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 268.105, su bd. 2
(2020). We agree with the argument of DEED that, upon remand, the ULJ may determine
whether the automatic extension applies to Tesfaye.
Remanded.