International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen v. Meese
case brief summary
616 F.Supp. 1387 (1985)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs represented masonry craftsmen working in the construction industry. Defendants were charged with the administration and enforcement of the immigration laws. Defendant-intervenor had purchased a newly designed gold ore processing system from a foreign manufacturing company. Defendants approved petitions for the foreign laborers to work on the system at the project site and issued B-1 visas.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and declared that the decision be applied non-retroactively because: (1) plaintiffs had standing; (2) the operation instructions lacked safeguards of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act); and (3) the operation instructions contravened the policies of the Act.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
616 F.Supp. 1387 (1985)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment of plaintiffs' suit for declaratory and injunctive relief
for defendants' practice of issuing visas to foreign laborers under
Immigration and Naturalization Service Operating Instructions
214.2(b)(5), allegedly violating Immigration and Nationality Act, 8
U.S.C.S. §§ 1101-1525.CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs represented masonry craftsmen working in the construction industry. Defendants were charged with the administration and enforcement of the immigration laws. Defendant-intervenor had purchased a newly designed gold ore processing system from a foreign manufacturing company. Defendants approved petitions for the foreign laborers to work on the system at the project site and issued B-1 visas.
DISCUSSION
- Plaintiffs were granted summary judgment in a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief for defendants' practice of issuing the visas to foreign laborers.
- Plaintiffs had standing under both the constitutional and prudential components of standing analysis.
- Defendants' operations instruction lacked the safeguards contained in § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act).
- The court held the central purpose of the Act was the protection of American labor, which the operating instruction failed to do.
- Based upon the considerations embodied in the Chevron test, the decision was to be applied non-retroactively.
- The court held Operations Instruction 214.2(b)(5) does not require an alien to seek labor certification prior to obtaining a non-immigrant visa.
CONCLUSION
The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and declared that the decision be applied non-retroactively because: (1) plaintiffs had standing; (2) the operation instructions lacked safeguards of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act); and (3) the operation instructions contravened the policies of the Act.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment