25CA1065 Aragon v ICAO 10-23-2025
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 25CA1065 Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado DD No. 12559-2025
Eric Aragon,
Petitioner,
v.
Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado,
Respondent.
ORDER AFFIRMED
Division I Opinion by JUDGE SCHUTZ J. Jones and Grove, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced October 23, 2025
Eric Aragon, Pro Se
No Appearance for Respondent ¶1 In this unemployment compensation benefits case, Eric
Aragon appeals a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office
(Panel) affirming a hearing officer’s dismissal of his administrative
appeal as untimely. We affirm the Panel’s order.
I. Background
¶2 On March 20, 2023, a deputy for the Division of
Unemployment Insurance (Division) determined that Aragon was
ineligible to receive benefits because he did not timely respond to
the Division’s request for information. The notice of this
determination provided that any appeal was due by April 10, 2023.
¶3 More than two years later, Aragon requested an administrative
appeal of the determination. The Division opened an appeal, but
the hearing officer dismissed it under Department of Labor and
Employment Regulation 12.1.3.2., 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2
because it was filed more than 180 days late.
¶4 Aragon appealed the hearing officer’s dismissal to the Panel,
asserting that he was unaware that he had become “indefinitely
ineligible” for benefits until recently, when he tried to apply again.
The Panel determined that the hearing officer correctly dismissed
Aragon’s administrative appeal and there was no reason to depart
1 from Regulation 12.1.3.2. The Panel “infer[red]” that the deputy’s
decision was timely uploaded to Aragon’s “MyUI+ account, with an
email sent to him informing him that correspondence had been
uploaded to his account and mailed to his address of record.” The
Panel also observed that the Division’s Computerized Appeals
Record Docketing System (CARDS) “listed [Aragon’s] preference [for
receiving notice] as electronic.” And the Panel noted that Aragon
did not respond to a Division employee’s phone message left for him
on March 10, 2023.
¶5 The Panel concluded that “due to [Aragon’s] personal
circumstances — e.g., he began working, we infer that he was not
paying any attention to correspondence sent to him by the Division
either by mail or electronically and did not listen nor respond to the
deputy’s message left on his phone on March 10, 2023.” The Panel
also said that although Aragon “believes he has been deemed
indefinitely ineligible” due to his failure to take steps such as
workforce registration, that was not the reason his claim was
deemed ineligible in 2023. The Panel noted that Aragon “had still
not provided the requested documentation,” and said that Aragon
2 “may want to contact the Division to find out how to provide the
requested documentation.”
¶6 Ultimately, the Panel concluded that even if Aragon had shown
good cause for the late appeal, appealing a deputy’s decision after
180 days may not be excused under the applicable regulation.
Therefore, the Panel affirmed the hearing officer’s dismissal.
II. Discussion
¶7 Aragon does not dispute the original ineligibility decision, and
he acknowledges that his administrative appeal was dismissed
under the applicable regulation. Instead, he asserts that the
Division has imposed “an indefinite disqualification” against him
from receiving benefits, and therefore he seeks review of the
“disproportionately severe and ongoing effect of being indefinitely
disqualified from all future benefits as a result of a
misunderstanding.”
¶8 Aragon explains that after he applied for benefits in 2023, he
accepted employment, discontinued weekly certifications, and
believed his claim had closed “in the normal course” due to his
return to work. He concedes that a “call may have occurred” in
March 2023 where the Division requested identity verification
3 documentation but says that he “did not understand the severity of
the consequences of not submitting the documents.”
¶9 Then, when he applied for benefits in 2024, his “payment was
blocked” due to his “indefinite ineligibility status from 2023.” He
asserts that he has since mailed the requested documentation to
the Division. He asks this court to “review and vacate the indefinite
disqualification imposed on his record, or alternatively, to remand
the matter for consideration of whether his eligibility for future
benefits may be restored.”
A. Standard of Review
¶ 10 We may set aside the Panel’s decision only if (1) the Panel
acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the decision was
procured by fraud; (3) the findings of fact do not support the
decision; or (4) the decision is erroneous as a matter of law. § 8-74-
107(6)(a)-(d), C.R.S. 2025.
B. Analysis
¶ 11 An appeal of a deputy’s decision must be submitted within
twenty calendar days after the date of notification of such decision.
§ 8-74-106(1)(a), C.R.S. 2025. Generally, a hearing officer may
accept a late appeal for good cause shown and in accordance with
4 rules adopted by the director of the Division. § 8-74-106(1)(b).
However, if an appeal is more than 180 days late, good cause may
not be established, a hearing shall not be scheduled, the appeal
shall be dismissed, and the deputy’s decision shall become final.
Dep’t of Lab. & Emp. Reg. 12.1.3.2.
¶ 12 Aragon’s appeal was filed more than 180 days late. The Panel
observed that the determination was made in March 2023 and that
there was no indication that Aragon did not receive it at that time,
or that filing a timely appeal was outside of Aragon’s control.
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the hearing officer’s application
of the regulations was correct.
¶ 13 Aragon lists five issues in his opening brief:
• Was the imposition of a lifetime disqualification (indefinite
ineligibility) a fair and proportionate consequence given the
circumstances?
• Did the Division provide clear instructions or notification that
failure to submit documents — even after ceasing to claim
benefits — would result in permanent ineligibility?
• Should Regulation 12.1.3.2 (automatic dismissal after 180
days) be reconsidered where a claimant had no actual
5 knowledge of the “indefinite disqualification” until after the
deadline passed?
• Was it reasonable for [the Panel] to determine that a
“reasonably prudent claimant” would have understood the
severity of not responding, despite returning to work and
ceasing further claims?
• Is it possible to restore future eligibility given [that Aragon] has
submitted the required documents and acted in good faith to
correct the issue?
¶ 14 First, as he did before the Panel, Aragon continues to assert
that the Division imposed an indefinite disqualification from
benefits. We see nothing in the record, however, that deems Aragon
indefinitely disqualified. Rather, the Panel simply indicated that
Aragon still needs to provide sufficient documentation to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
25CA1065 Aragon v ICAO 10-23-2025
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 25CA1065 Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado DD No. 12559-2025
Eric Aragon,
Petitioner,
v.
Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado,
Respondent.
ORDER AFFIRMED
Division I Opinion by JUDGE SCHUTZ J. Jones and Grove, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced October 23, 2025
Eric Aragon, Pro Se
No Appearance for Respondent ¶1 In this unemployment compensation benefits case, Eric
Aragon appeals a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office
(Panel) affirming a hearing officer’s dismissal of his administrative
appeal as untimely. We affirm the Panel’s order.
I. Background
¶2 On March 20, 2023, a deputy for the Division of
Unemployment Insurance (Division) determined that Aragon was
ineligible to receive benefits because he did not timely respond to
the Division’s request for information. The notice of this
determination provided that any appeal was due by April 10, 2023.
¶3 More than two years later, Aragon requested an administrative
appeal of the determination. The Division opened an appeal, but
the hearing officer dismissed it under Department of Labor and
Employment Regulation 12.1.3.2., 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2
because it was filed more than 180 days late.
¶4 Aragon appealed the hearing officer’s dismissal to the Panel,
asserting that he was unaware that he had become “indefinitely
ineligible” for benefits until recently, when he tried to apply again.
The Panel determined that the hearing officer correctly dismissed
Aragon’s administrative appeal and there was no reason to depart
1 from Regulation 12.1.3.2. The Panel “infer[red]” that the deputy’s
decision was timely uploaded to Aragon’s “MyUI+ account, with an
email sent to him informing him that correspondence had been
uploaded to his account and mailed to his address of record.” The
Panel also observed that the Division’s Computerized Appeals
Record Docketing System (CARDS) “listed [Aragon’s] preference [for
receiving notice] as electronic.” And the Panel noted that Aragon
did not respond to a Division employee’s phone message left for him
on March 10, 2023.
¶5 The Panel concluded that “due to [Aragon’s] personal
circumstances — e.g., he began working, we infer that he was not
paying any attention to correspondence sent to him by the Division
either by mail or electronically and did not listen nor respond to the
deputy’s message left on his phone on March 10, 2023.” The Panel
also said that although Aragon “believes he has been deemed
indefinitely ineligible” due to his failure to take steps such as
workforce registration, that was not the reason his claim was
deemed ineligible in 2023. The Panel noted that Aragon “had still
not provided the requested documentation,” and said that Aragon
2 “may want to contact the Division to find out how to provide the
requested documentation.”
¶6 Ultimately, the Panel concluded that even if Aragon had shown
good cause for the late appeal, appealing a deputy’s decision after
180 days may not be excused under the applicable regulation.
Therefore, the Panel affirmed the hearing officer’s dismissal.
II. Discussion
¶7 Aragon does not dispute the original ineligibility decision, and
he acknowledges that his administrative appeal was dismissed
under the applicable regulation. Instead, he asserts that the
Division has imposed “an indefinite disqualification” against him
from receiving benefits, and therefore he seeks review of the
“disproportionately severe and ongoing effect of being indefinitely
disqualified from all future benefits as a result of a
misunderstanding.”
¶8 Aragon explains that after he applied for benefits in 2023, he
accepted employment, discontinued weekly certifications, and
believed his claim had closed “in the normal course” due to his
return to work. He concedes that a “call may have occurred” in
March 2023 where the Division requested identity verification
3 documentation but says that he “did not understand the severity of
the consequences of not submitting the documents.”
¶9 Then, when he applied for benefits in 2024, his “payment was
blocked” due to his “indefinite ineligibility status from 2023.” He
asserts that he has since mailed the requested documentation to
the Division. He asks this court to “review and vacate the indefinite
disqualification imposed on his record, or alternatively, to remand
the matter for consideration of whether his eligibility for future
benefits may be restored.”
A. Standard of Review
¶ 10 We may set aside the Panel’s decision only if (1) the Panel
acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the decision was
procured by fraud; (3) the findings of fact do not support the
decision; or (4) the decision is erroneous as a matter of law. § 8-74-
107(6)(a)-(d), C.R.S. 2025.
B. Analysis
¶ 11 An appeal of a deputy’s decision must be submitted within
twenty calendar days after the date of notification of such decision.
§ 8-74-106(1)(a), C.R.S. 2025. Generally, a hearing officer may
accept a late appeal for good cause shown and in accordance with
4 rules adopted by the director of the Division. § 8-74-106(1)(b).
However, if an appeal is more than 180 days late, good cause may
not be established, a hearing shall not be scheduled, the appeal
shall be dismissed, and the deputy’s decision shall become final.
Dep’t of Lab. & Emp. Reg. 12.1.3.2.
¶ 12 Aragon’s appeal was filed more than 180 days late. The Panel
observed that the determination was made in March 2023 and that
there was no indication that Aragon did not receive it at that time,
or that filing a timely appeal was outside of Aragon’s control.
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the hearing officer’s application
of the regulations was correct.
¶ 13 Aragon lists five issues in his opening brief:
• Was the imposition of a lifetime disqualification (indefinite
ineligibility) a fair and proportionate consequence given the
circumstances?
• Did the Division provide clear instructions or notification that
failure to submit documents — even after ceasing to claim
benefits — would result in permanent ineligibility?
• Should Regulation 12.1.3.2 (automatic dismissal after 180
days) be reconsidered where a claimant had no actual
5 knowledge of the “indefinite disqualification” until after the
deadline passed?
• Was it reasonable for [the Panel] to determine that a
“reasonably prudent claimant” would have understood the
severity of not responding, despite returning to work and
ceasing further claims?
• Is it possible to restore future eligibility given [that Aragon] has
submitted the required documents and acted in good faith to
correct the issue?
¶ 14 First, as he did before the Panel, Aragon continues to assert
that the Division imposed an indefinite disqualification from
benefits. We see nothing in the record, however, that deems Aragon
indefinitely disqualified. Rather, the Panel simply indicated that
Aragon still needs to provide sufficient documentation to
substantiate his current unemployment claim. While Aragon
claims that he has now mailed the requested documentation, the
record does not indicate whether the Division has received or
accepted the documentation as sufficiently substantiating. We
therefore have no basis in the record to conclude that the Division
deemed Aragon indefinitely ineligible for benefits.
6 ¶ 15 Second, at this juncture, Aragon does not appear to argue that
he did not receive notice of the 2023 determination, but rather
asserts that he did not recognize the importance of it at that time.
Aragon initially asserted to the Division that he did not have notice
of the need to submit additional documentation to support his
claim. But in his Notice of Appeal, filed on June 9, 2025, Aragon
says “he understands now” that a request for identity verification
documents “may have been made through a phone call or voice
mail, and possibly by email, as I had selected electronic
communication as my preferred method.” Thus, to the extent that
Aragon argues lack of notice as a due process violation, that
contention is moot.
¶ 16 Third, the Panel recognized that Aragon’s “failure to timely
appeal, possibly misreading the decision, or not listening to the
phone message may have been unintentional and unfortunate,” but
concluded that a “reasonably prudent claimant” would not have
made the error. Aragon takes issue with this determination,
arguing that since he returned to work, he assumed the claim was
closed and that a reasonably prudent person would not have
responded to the document request. We agree with the Panel,
7 however, that a reasonably prudent person would have continued to
respond to document requests indicating that his unemployment
compensation benefits claim was still missing information.
¶ 17 Finally, to the extent Aragon asks this court to “restore future
eligibility,” that is beyond the scope of our limited review. First, as
previously noted, the record does not support Aragon’s contention
that the Panel imposed a lifetime disqualification against him. As it
relates to the particular application at issue, the Panel indicated
that the Division may still be awaiting information from Aragon to
determine future eligibility. Without any evidence of the current
status of the Division’s request, we have no basis to further address
that limited ruling.
¶ 18 After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the
hearing officer and the Panel properly applied the plain language of
the applicable regulations. Dep’t of Revenue v. Agilent Techs., Inc.,
2019 CO 41, ¶ 25 (when a regulation’s language is clear and
unambiguous, it must be applied as written). And because we
conclude that the Panel’s decision was supported by the record and
not erroneous, we must affirm the Panel’s decision. See Mesa
County Pub. Libr. Dist. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2017 CO 78,
8 ¶ 17 (a reviewing court is bound by the hearing officer’s and the
Panel’s findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence
in the record).
III. Disposition
¶ 19 We affirm the Panel’s order.
JUDGE J. JONES and JUDGE GROVE concur.