Ou v. ICAO

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 12, 2024
• Docket: 24CA0625
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

24CA0625 Ou v ICAO 12-12-2024

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 24CA0625 Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado DD No. 33034-2023

Zhuying Ou,

Petitioner,

v.

Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado and Division of Unemployment Insurance Invalid Claims Team,

Respondents.

ORDER AFFIRMED

Division IV Opinion by JUDGE HARRIS Yun and Graham*, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced December 12, 2024

Zhuying Ou, Pro Se

No Appearance for Respondents

*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2024. ¶1 Zhuying Ou appeals a final order of the Industrial Claim

Appeals Office (the Panel) concerning her application for

unemployment insurance benefits. In that order, the Panel affirmed

a hearing officer’s determination that Ou failed to submit a valid

claim and was therefore ineligible to receive benefits. We affirm the

Panel’s order.

I. Background

¶2 Ou filed an application with the Colorado Department of Labor

and Employment (the Department) for unemployment insurance

benefits covering an approximately one-year period, from April 12,

2020, through April 10, 2021. On November 17, 2023, the

Department notified Ou that her claim was “ineligible due to

fraudulent misrepresentation[.]” Specifically, the deputy found that

“the [social security number] used” on the application “was not

owned by the party that filed this claim.”

¶3 Ou requested a hearing on the Department’s decision and

asked that a Mandarin translator assist her at the hearing. When

the Department notified Ou regarding the scheduled hearing date, it

1 also advised her to send the Department any documents supporting

her appeal in advance of the hearing, via electronic upload or mail.

A. The Hearing Officer’s Review

¶4 A Mandarin translator attended the hearing, as did Ou and

her daughter. Ou’s daughter informed the hearing officer that Ou

neither spoke nor understood Mandarin and only understood

Fujianese. The Department could not provide a Fujianese

interpreter for the hearing. The hearing officer allowed Ou’s

daughter to translate, though Ou’s daughter stated her own English

was “not great.”

¶5 Through her daughter, Ou testified that her daughter and an

English-fluent family friend helped Ou file her application. Ou’s

daughter confirmed that Ou listed the friend’s mailing address and

email address on her application.

¶6 Ou could not verbally provide her social security number.

Her daughter asked if she could “say it for” Ou, but the hearing

officer said that Ou had to “state it to [the daughter] and [the

daughter could] translate.” Her daughter explained, though, that

2 Ou had never attended school and could not read letters,

characters, or numbers, so Ou “[could] not say” the number.

¶7 Ou’s daughter stated that she provided the Department with

Ou’s social security card, using the link on the hearing notice.

However, at the time of the hearing, the hearing officer had not

received it. He instructed Ou’s daughter to send any supporting

documents through the link in the hearing notice by the day’s end.

¶8 Three days later, the hearing officer issued an order finding

that Ou failed to provide any documentation “to verify her identity,”

including her social security number. Further, Ou had admitted

that her application substituted her family friend’s mailing and

email addresses for her own, “for reasons related to [the friend’s]

ability to read and write English.” For these reasons, the hearing

officer affirmed the Department’s determination and found that “the

unemployment insurance benefit claim ‘was]s fraudulent” under the

applicable statutes.

3 B. The Panel’s Order

¶9 Ou appealed the hearing officer’s decision to the Panel, which

concluded that the evidence supported the hearing officer’s factual

findings. The Panel then determined that the hearing officer had

not erred by finding that Ou “failed to prove the claim for

unemployment benefits was not fraudulent[,]” pursuant to sections

8-70-111(2)(a) and 8-81-101(1), (4)(a)(II)-(III).1

II. Standard of Review

¶ 10 Under section 8-74-107, C.R.S. 2024, we may not disturb

factual findings “supported by substantial evidence,” and may only

set aside the Panel’s decision if (1) the Panel acted without or in

excess of its powers; (2) the decision was procured by fraud; (3) the

Panel’s factual findings do not support its decision; or (4) the

decision is erroneous as a matter of law. § 8-74-107(4), (6).

1 Though the Panel affirmed the hearing officer’s characterization of

Ou’s conduct as “fraud” and cited various subsections of section 8- 81-101, C.R.S. 2024, setting forth civil and criminal penalties for fraudulent conduct, the order does not purport to impose any consequences under section 8-81-101. 4 III. Analysis

¶ 11 Because Ou represents herself, we construe her arguments

liberally, giving effect to their substance rather than form. People v.

Bergerud, 223 P.3d 686, 696-97 (Colo. 2010). As we understand

her written submission, Ou contends that at the hearing, she was

unable to prove her identity — and thus demonstrate her eligibility

for benefits — due to education, language, and literacy barriers.

¶ 12 The claimant bears the initial burden of establishing a prima

facie case of eligibility for benefits. Lucero v. Indus. Claim Appeals

Off., 812 P.2d 1191, 1193 (Colo. App. 1991). A claimant establishes

a prima facie case for benefits by submitting a “valid initial claim”

under section 8-70-111(2)(a), C.R.S. 2024. A “valid initial claim” for

unemployment insurance benefits must (1) include the claimant’s

social security number and (2) establish that the claimant meets

the eligibility criteria (regarding work and payment history) set forth

in section 8-73-107(1)(e), C.R.S. 2024. § 8-70-111(2)(a).

¶ 13 Substantial evidence supports the finding that Ou failed to

provide her social security number, as required by section 8-70-

5 111(2)(a). On appeal, Ou does not dispute that her claim

application included a social security number that did not belong to

her. Instead, she attaches documents to her written submission

that supposedly establish her identity — copies of a redacted social

security card, a permanent resident card, and a debit card. But we

cannot consider evidence that was not presented to the hearing

officer. See § 8-74-107(6); Huddy v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 894

P.2d 60, 62 (Colo. App. 1995) (noting that section 8-74-107(6)

includes no provisions allowing the court to consider supplemental

evidence).

¶ 14 Because Ou failed to provide her social security number, the

Panel correctly concluded that she failed to meet her burden of

proof and was therefore ineligible for benefits.

IV. Disposition

¶ 15 The Panel’s order is affirmed.

JUDGE YUN and JUDGE GRAHAM concur.