ARQUIMIDES GUZMAN v. BOARD OF REVIEW

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3559-04T53559-04T5

ARQUIMIDES GUZMAN,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

Respondent.

_________________________________________

 

Submitted January 19, 2006 - Decided February 2, 2006

Before Judges Conley and Weissbard.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor and Workforce Development.

Arquimides Guzman, appellant pro se.

Nancy Kaplen, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; John C. Turi, Deputy Attorney General, on the letter-brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from a Board of Review determination that he was disqualified for unemployment benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), and a corresponding determination that he is responsible for a refund of $980 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d)(1). We affirm.

The scope of our review of an agency decision, of course, is limited. We accord the presumption of validity to the agency's decision, which will be sustained unless it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. See, e.g., R & R Mktg. v. Brown-Forman Corp., 158 N.J. 170, 175 (1999); In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 657 (1999); Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). See also Matturri v. Bd. of Trs. of the Judicial Ret. Sys., 173 N.J. 368, 381-83 (2002); Doering v. Bd. of Review, 203 N.J. Super. 241, 245 (App. Div. 1985). See generally, Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 7.2 on R. 2:10-2 (2006).

The burden of establishing entitlement to unemployment benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) is on the claimant. That test is whether there was "[good] 'cause sufficient to justify an employee's voluntarily leaving the ranks of the employed and joining the ranks of the unemployed.'" Zielenski v. Bd. of Review, 85 N.J. Super. 46, 52 (App. Div. 1964) (quoting Goebelbecker v. State, 53 N.J. Super. 53, 59 (App. Div. 1958)). See Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453, 457 (1982). "Good cause" is "a reason related directly to the individual's employment, which was so compelling as to give the individual no choice but to leave the employment." N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(b).

Here, there is no dispute as to appellant's reason for leaving his employment, i.e., to relocate to Georgia. The Board of Review accepted the Appeal Tribunal's conclusion that "claimant's leaving to relocate is a personal reason." We have no occasion for interfering with this conclusion. That appellant may have had a monetary reason for doing so, in that he claims the raise he received in his New Jersey job was not enough to allow him to buy a house in New Jersey, does not change the character of the reason as solely personal.

 
Further, because appellant was properly found disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, he is responsible for a refund of the benefits that he did receive. N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d)(1); Bannan v. Bd. of Review, 299 N.J. Super. 671, 675 (App. Div. 1997) (stating that federal law requires states to recover improperly paid unemployment benefits).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3559-04T5

February 2, 2006