ILNews

7th Circuit shoots down Homeland Security decision

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Department of Homeland Security wrongly second-guessed the federal labor department in denying an application by a mental health residential care group – Hoosier Care Inc. – asking for labor certification and immigrant visas for two Filipinos, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today.

An eight-page opinion in Hoosier Care Inc. v. Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., comes from a decision last year in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

Hoosier Care, a non-profit organization that operates in both Illinois and Indiana, wanted to hire two Filipinos without American citizenship to be staff members to help take care of disabled adults and children at one of its Illinois facilities. They were to be "developmental disability specialists," the suit says. In order to hire them, the company had to first receive alien labor certification before being able to obtain immigrant visas for the pair.

The Department of Labor granted the certification after receiving information that the two met education requirements, but the Homeland Security ;s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency later rejected the petition to classify the two eligible for "employer-based" immigration status. An Illinois District Court ruled against Hoosier Care in its challenge of the decision.

However, the three judge panel – Judges Richard Posner, Ilana Rovner and Diane Sykes – reversed the decision and remanded it to the Department of Homeland Security for further proceedings, essentially arguing that the labor department has jurisdiction here and not homeland security officials.

In the decision, Judge Posner wrote, "But the Department of Homeland Security does not argue that in conducting such and investigation in this case it was simply doing the Labor Department 's work for it. If it wants to do that, it will have to change its regulations and probably also persuade Congress to change the statute."
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT