Minnesota State Law Library
Shown here are the statements of the issues presented for review by the appellate courts in the briefs filed for this case. The entire brief set can be found at the State Law Library and other libraries around the state. See Minnesota Appellate Court Briefs Collection for more information.
CASE NAME: Alaa I. Abdi, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Read the opinion in this case at A07-945
CITATION: 749 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)
Legal Issues in RELATOR-APPELLANT'S INFORMAL BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
1. DID THE STATE ERR WHEN IT ATTEMPTED TO RESCIND APPROVAL OF SIMULTANEOUS PROGRAMS BECAUSE THE PROGRAMS WERE NOT SEGREGATED AND SERIAL? The Administrative Law Judge Held: No. 19 USC 2293(a) (2); 19 USC 2293 (g); 19 USC 2296 (a)(l)(f); 19 USC 2296 (a)(5)(g); 2. DID THE AMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERR WHEN HE FAILED TO CONSIDER WAIVER OF THE CLAIMED REIMBURSEMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE? The Administrative Law Judge Held: No Ruling. 19 USC 2102; 20 CFR 617.55 (a)(i) and (a)(ii).
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT-DEPARTMENT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
Under the law an applicant is eligible for up to a 26-week extension of benefits under the Trade Assistance Act only if he took a full remedial course load as part of a program of remedial education. Alaa Abdi attended both remedial courses and occupational courses during the first 25 weeks of his 104-week TAA training plan. When his benefits were exhausted at the end of that program, the Department amended it to grant an additional 25 weeks of benefits under the mistaken belief that he had participated in a full-time remedial program for 25 weeks. Was Abdi wrongly granted the 25-week extension and, therefore, overpaid benefits for that period? The Unemployment Law Judge held that Abdi was not entitled to the 25- week extension and that he was overpaid benefits for that period.